Two challenges for KL – (fossil) Lucy’s defender

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 3, 2011

Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A most interesting discussion has got started here at “But ‘Lucy’ herself is mostly an artifact”. Commenter KL got it going, I suspect, by observing that

I certainly don’t consider you hicks. However, my spouse and associates are primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists. It’s strange to come here and see their work dismissed as a just so story. Some of them have been in the field extensively and have published many, many papers. Are you guys saying that somehow all these people are simply mistaken?

Yes, it is quite possible.

My question is, is there anything fronted by “evolution researchers” that KL wouldn’t believe? How about the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution? Or Marc “Well, the monkeys talk to me!” Hauser? How about any single item on this list? Is there nothing that KL would even wonder about? Does he know that E. O. Wilson has retracted his own kin selection theory?

Two things: The public of a free society is not stupid. When we see a parade of amazing nonsense – marketed as evolution – we wisely don’t believe any of it. I don’t bother sorting through it for the same reason as I don’t scan the tabloids to see if anything in them is true.

It is no use berating us, let alone blaming us for low science scores. Revisit your strategy.

And second, would KL be willing to read The Nature of Nature, to understand what the controversy is really about? Then we could have a serious discussion.

(Note: KL has a spouse and associates in primate research, and I have a number of relatives and friends in medicine. That does not commit me to any particular theory, no matter how widely espoused, and a good thing too: Look how much medicine has changed. )

Comments

Upright,
Now this exercise was set up as a mapping of complete word/symbols taken from each language; exchanging nucleic bases with language symbols. But the exact same thing can be reversed and have the genetic code used to encode German, French, and English. The entire dictionary in German, French, and English could be contained within genetic code, and be converted back out again.
Thank you for proving my point in such detail. They key word is "converted". I work in a field related to language translation and trust me we don't "convert" from one language to another. We translate. To illustrate this, please perform the following "conversion": Take the German word "schadenfreude" and "convert" it into DNA. Now convert that DNA sequence into English. Please tell me what the result is.JemimaRacktouey_{April 8, 2011
April
04
Apr
8
08
2011
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Since Denyse mentioned the "Big Bazooms" theory of human evolution," I thought I'd mention this amusing discussion, in which the evolutionary implications of Sir Mix-a-Lot's song "Baby Got Back" are explored.QuiteID_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Do you agree that they [laws of logic] are not composed of matter or energy, that they are not extended in time/space, and that they are universal, and unchangeable? ---Jemima Racktouey: “I will answer the question in the context of there being an “intelligent designer” who created everything.” I asked you if the laws of logic [or thought] are non material. The question calls for a yes or a no answer and requires no reference to a designer. Would you like for me to answer the question for you? If so, you will have lost the opportunity to provide your own answer. ---“If miracles happen then changing the unchangeable is possible. Perhaps they have already changed and will continue to change.” Obviously, your statement contradicts itself. If something can be changed, then clearly it was not unchangeable. Of course, if you don’t accept the law of non-contradiction as a non-negotiable principle of right reason, then that would be no problem for you. It might be possible to change something that "appears" to be unchangeable, but that is another matter. Indeed, the laws of logic help us to think clearly so that we can make that very distinction. ---“Who can tell? How can you tell such things?” I know that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. I also know that this was true in the past and will be true in the future. Apparently, you do not know this, which puts you at a severe disadvantage. ---“Is the temperature of a gas composed of matter or energy? No.StephenB_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

"Onlookers: The sad patterns of distortion and uncalled for polarisation or even outright uncivil conduct above coming from KL and JR today, show why I refuse to even visit places like ATBC. GEM of TKI" Onlookers, Jr and I have been civil; we simply asked that we stick to the original premise of this thread, something that hasn't happened. I can understand why you refuse to visit ATBC: you would have zero control over who posts and could not ramble off topic while your opponents languish in moderation. You cannot explain the hominid fossil record from your paradigm because ID is not a theory, only a metaphysical conjecture and an attempt to use mathematics to wave away the evidence that already exists ("Maths says that these fossils can't happen so we won't look at them too closely") If you knew enough about the fossil record you should be able to apply your paradigm to the details. That you won't tells me that you a) have no familiarity with the fossils and b) have no working theory that can handle details in those fossils. If either of both of these is true, then your original dismissal of the work of anthropologists is arrogant and incorrect.KL_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

^^^ characterizing = MIScharacterizing Sorrykornbelt888_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

JemimaRacktouey: On C.S Lewis Keith Parsons said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’... Seems to me that Lewis couldn’t comprehend the fundamentals of logical deduction.
Parsons and you are characterizing Lewis. See Lewis's book Miracles for his views on the subject.kornbelt888_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Hello Indium, I read your response with interest. I mean no disrespect, but I think you are completely mistaken. If someone should say to you that they have a credible explanation of some observation. And if they then provide to you reasoning that such phenomena have only be observed as the result of a very specific type of cause. And if during this exchange, you are not capable of refuting their observations or offering any counter-examples, then it certainly seems odd for you to quaintly respond “So where’s your evidence?” This kind of reaction is indistinguishable from simply refusing to acknowledge facts. You then say that I am not able to infer the properties of codes. I completely disagree. On what grounds am I not able to make inferences regarding things that we all can observe? If I am unable to draw inferences from what is actually observed, then on what grounds can anyone else do so? How would any scientific endeavor at all proceed under such a rule? Regarding your comments on DNA: 1) The information in DNA is encoded along its linear axis, not its horizontal axis. Along the linear axis, there are no chemo-physical bonds that determine the order of the sequence (which contains the information). The bonds you mistakenly want to allude to are along the other axis. 2) Regarding the horizontal axis, I assume you are referring to the bonds associated with tRNA. You imply that there is a physical link maintained from nucleotide through tRNA to amino acid. This is not true. The amino acid is attached on one end of the tRNA structure, and the codon is entirely on the other end. The two do not chemically or physically interact in a determinant manner. 3) The relationship between the codon and the amino acid is determined by the make-up of the charged tRNA. These (and the system by which they are charged) are a necessary physical expression of the system’s translation rules. And where does the make-up of tRNA come from? Yes… from the information along the linear axis of DNA, where no chemical bonds determine its content. - - - - I am off. Cheers...Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Just so ya know.... “A remarkable feature of the structure is that DNA can accommodate almost any sequence of base pairs—any combination of the bases adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T)—and, hence any digital message or information. ” - Biologist, Leroy Hood and David Galas PhD: The Digital Code of DNAUpright BiPed_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

If DNA is indeed a language (I.E a symbolic representation enabling the mapping of concepts onto components that are interchangeable or possible to recreate with similar components representing the same or similar concepts) then could you translate some of it into French for me? Then German. Then English. Then back to, well, DNA?
Sure, why not. I’ll need to pick some symbols from each language, and to set up some new rules for translation. Since these symbols are inherently non-deterministic (freely chosen) in each language, and similarly, since the physical and chemical bonds that form DNA do not determine the sequence in which they exist, I will freely choose the French word “feignez” to be my symbol of guanine. I will also choose “ist” in German and “are” in English to represent the same thing. Thymine will be represented by the German symbol “haus”, the French symbol “porte” and the English symbol “kitty”. Cytosine will be represented by the German symbol “offensichtlich” and the French symbol “le”, and the English symbol “impressed”. Adenine will be represented by the German symbol “das”, the French symbol “vous” and the English symbol “you”. With that said, here is my conversion for the amino acid threonine in French: “vous le feignez” = threonine And here is my conversion of the amino acid serine in German: “das ist offensichtlich” = serine And finally my conversion for aspartic acid in English: “are you impressed” = aspartic acid Now, if you can rig a ribosome that can process these new rules and symbols, and implement them into the genetic system, you will get the same functional result as with the original nucleic bases. That was, after all the point (regarding symbolic representations). Now this exercise was set up as a mapping of complete word/symbols taken from each language; exchanging nucleic bases with language symbols. But the exact same thing can be reversed and have the genetic code used to encode German, French, and English. The entire dictionary in German, French, and English could be contained within genetic code, and be converted back out again. In other words, this is a no-winner for you. You will be left to object and obfuscate over inconsequential examples which are meaningless to the point. Yet I do realize that these objections give you a rhetorical respite from the facts, and therefore they are a path to continued denial. You are welcome to pat yourself on the back, at the expense of conflating a coding system with the information it contains. But do understand, these games have all been played here before. The truth, it seems, doesn’t matter to you. Or at least, that was the common denominator the last time someone came to UD and asked to have the informational content of DNA converted into French.Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

(Me: referring to the use of symbolic representations used in a digital linear environment) “In our universal experience, the use of symbols in such a system arises from a singular source – that is, from a deliberate act of volition”.
You, and we, in fact have no such experence.
We have no such experience where symbols are arranged in a way to convey meaning? Check please.Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

I came back and was reading though the responses. I was humored by the way Jemima couldn’t stand at the front of StephenB’s question and simply answer it. She had to revert to a “rhetorical trick” instead. (Having to revert to a rhetorical trick is something Jemima has demonstrated repeatedly, and has been called on it. I believe a contributor on another thread used the phrase "intellectual coward” in that regard). Of course the reasons for this are obvious, but still, the hypocrisy of wrapping oneself in the blanket of Enlightenment only to be forced into ignoring evidence – is a sight to see. Then I finally got to her response to me. Geez. One of the things materialist ideologues forget when they come here is that we are all human beings. We all share humanity; we share what it is to interact as an individual among others. We share the tricks of the trade. When a person cannot confront a fair question and answer it, there is a reason.Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

JR: Please look again at just what beck is cited as saying; not only does it imply that miracles can happen anytime creating a chaos -- when in fact for miracles to work aw signs there has to be a stable natural order -- but that believers in God are utterly gullible. Beyond that, I think I need to give you a timeout to calm down. Good night, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

jemi, as to miracles, exactly how do you exp0lain the now established scientific fact that the entire universe came into being from a higher transcendent realm that is not limited by time and space? Is it a miracle, or is it not, and either way, because it is now established that the entire universe can come into being instantaneously from a higher dimension, exactly why would it be 'unscientific' to presuppose 'top-down' appearance of life on earth? Do you suppose we should rule it 'unscientific' solely because atheists find it very unappealing, or should we, more logically, treat top-down 'sudden appearance' as a live 'science' option since it now shown to be a true fact for the entire universe? As to the accusation of taking 'fossil' quotes out of context. Here is a defense of perhaps the most damning quote ever by a neo-Darwinist. That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils Excerpt: Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma: ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ He went on to say: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossilsbornagain77_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

JR: Your last post is descending into personal abuse, driven by red herrings led away to strawman distortions. Please, do better than that. And, If you will but scroll up, you will see that I hav e roughed out what an FSCI calculation for moving from an ape-like ancestor to a modern human would look like on the usual 98% chimp claim on our genome. The calculation can doubtless be refined and made more sophisticated, but that will not change the material point: there is a major information origination issue to explain on transforming an ape into a human. And, that points to the only empirically credible source of such FSCI, design. but of course, if you can show the calculation is in serious errorat the order of magnitude level, that would reduce the chift between chimp DNA to huiman to less than 1,000 bits worth of change, that would be corrective. Similarly, if you can show that there is a credibly observed case where on chance plus necessity without intelligent action, FSCI comes to be, that would also be a falsification. In short you are personalising a matter where there is an objective standard that can be met, accusing me of conceit where all I am doing is appealing to the criteria of facts and logic, with analysis on inference to best empirically anchored explanation. That tells the astute onlooker a lot about where the balance is on the merits. Please, do better than that. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, do you see why it is I spoke earlier about fever swamps and angry clouds of mosquitoes? I am sorry if my words are painful but consider what has happened to me at UD -- not even ATBC -- across a day where I decided to sacrifice a fair quantum of time to answer issues on points (having been accused of being evasive when I have been in fact busy elsewhere, starting with economic and constitutional crises following hard on the heels of an intense trip overseas). Distortion of issues and arguments, refusal to engage central issues on the merits, refusal to acknowledge plain facts, denigration, slander, outright lying. A sad picture, but a telling one on what has been going on on origins science issues, for years. Do you see how the faculty and administrators of U of K were so misled, ill advised and polarised that they implicated their school in a US$ 125,000 legal blunder?kairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

KF
1 –> This is a contemptuous dismissal that implies that those who believe in God are thereby dismisible as ignorant, stupid, insane, or gullible.
No, rather it means that anything you are told could be explained as a miracle. Anything. You for instance believe that limbs can grow back due to prayer. Despite the fact that we've never observed it. Ever. You explain the single historical reference to such as a miracle, as proof that miracles can occur. Yes, I know that because I was Blue Lotus. I got you to say that. And we spoke at length about Weasel and latching. Or not. And a $10,000 little bet for a quote you never did deliver, but claimed victory anyway. As you do. So anyway, if you believe miracles exist then you can't rule anything out can you? So how can you do science like that? That you turn that into people who believe in God are insane simply shows your first and primary rhetorical trick in play. And as such sir, I find your behavior unacceptable!
The sad patterns of distortion and uncalled for polarisation or even outright uncivil conduct above coming from KL and JR today, show why I refuse to even visit places like ATBC.
Your "arguments" and "evidence" would be eviscerated in seconds by experts in the fields you claim an expertise in and you know it. Looks like the truth can only shield you so much eh? When actual facts come knocking then it fails. Care to prove otherwise? I'll talk to you no different there then here, and you've spent 100's of words on me already.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

F/N: JR, if an anthropologist is blinded and locked into the sort of Lewontinian a priori materialism as I pointed to above, then that anthropologist will make grievous blunders in interpreting the fossil record. And, indeed, there is a sad track record of exactly that happening, with some pretty spectacular cases in point. And not all of such are 50 or more years old either.kairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

KF
I think I can leave onlookers to compare the actual substance I have put up and linked
Please. You can't serious expect to win any arguments by such means. Argumentum websiteo? And you've not addressed any specific point about a single specific fossil. Which is the point of this thread. I'd rather do that then talk about your website.
with your attempted rebuttals
I've not really attempted any rebuttals as you've kept to generalities quite well indeed. Address the topic of the thread! Talk about a specific fossil group, explain their ages, distribution and features using another paradigm or until you do the old one stands. By definition! Until you do the old one stands.
In the case of the emergence of man, the key unanswered question is to account for the FSCI involved in say transforming Lucy and kin into a modern human.
Then please address this point. If I have to explain where the FSCI involved in transforming Lucy and Kin comes from could you tell me how much FSCI it is I have to explain? I.E How much FSCI "Lucy" contains. Given what happened last time (F)CSI came up I'm surprised you say this to be honest. Tell me how to calculate the FSCI for a fossil, any fossil. If you can't how can you talk about an increase or decrease? How can you tell? Gut feel perhaps?
If we exhibit a significant increment of FSCI relative to apes, then it implicates design in our origins.
And do we notice such then? How much? How are you measuring that? Care to show how you've worked that out?
As to the geochronological timelines etc, all I am cautioning is that there are significant limitations in the methods and findings, which limitations, sadly, are too often not properly acknowledged.
If you can't be specific then how do you expect such limitations to be addressed? What specific relationship is called into doubt by these "limitations" with "Lucy"? It's odd how you just can't come out and say what your concerns actually are and how they related to "Lucy". Perhaps you've nothing specific to actually say, you just disagree with something, somehow, you know that KL is wrong, but somehow you just can't quite say what it is. So you bring in off topic claims. The fact is that the reigning evolutionary materialist orthodoxy is not imposing an a priori metaphysics on the evidence of origins on you right now, is it? You are free to make your point, to a person who knows more about the subject then you do, clearly. I would have thought you would have taken it as an opportunity to learn from somebody asking specific question in their area of expertise and how it relates to ID. But no... You don't know anything about the issue under discussion but you can't help but come in and poke fun at the nasty old materialists. How wrong they are. How they can't explain "Lucy" despite their constant publication of "papers" claiming to "explain" things. But they are all starting from the wrong premise right KF? Only you really knows the truth. And the truth is simply that they are wrong. And G.E.M is right.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

JR: Sigh . . . Perhaps it has not dawned on you that I am being gentle in leaving out some of the more grievous blunders in Lewontin's article, especially if they are not directly relevant to the main concern. But, since you specifically bring it up (and seem to think it makes a telling point) . . . _________________ >> The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. 1 --> This is a contemptuous dismissal that implies that those who believe in God are thereby dismisible as ignorant, stupid, insane, or gullible. 2 --> it is unworthy of Lewontin to have cited it (and BTW there are other things that are as bad in the article . . . ), and it is not necessary to the key issues on science and its methods 3 --> Would you call say Aquinas, or Newton, or Descartes, or Maxwell, or Pasteur, or Planck or many others up to and including Nobel Prize holders ignorant, gullible and uncritical? To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. 4 --> For a miracle to stand out as a sign pointing beyond the ordinary course of nature [the core meaning of the term], there has to be an ordinary course of nature, i.e. a supernaturalist theism is as deeply committed to the existence of a regular natural order as any other position. 5 --> Indeed, for us to be accountable before God as morally governed creatures and stewards of creation,there has to be a predictability to the ways of the world. i.e actions should have reliably predictable consequences. 6 --> So, a supernaturalistic view of the world IMPLIES that science is feasible and even desirable. 7 --> Any basic and fair summary of the origins of science in modern times, will reveal that in fact it is that theological expectation of and confidence in an orderly world created by "a God of order" -- I here quote St Paul -- in a civilisation shaped by the Christian faith, that played a major role in the modern foundation of science. 8 --> In short, the Christian view implies and expects that we live in a cosmos, not a chaos, so Beck is wrong and Lewontin is worse wrong to imagine that believing in a God who is Creator and who intervenes in the ordinary course of the world for good reason, is to believe in a chaos in which science is an absurd attempt to make order out of the obvious chaos. 9 --> Any reasonably competent theologian could have better informed both Beck and Lewontin. And as a matter of fact, the most popular theological writer of the past century, Lewis, did so, repeatedly. Indeed, his Miracles is still worth reading. >> __________________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: The sad patterns of distortion and uncalled for polarisation or even outright uncivil conduct above coming from KL and JR today, show why I refuse to even visit places like ATBC. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

JR: As to the rest of you remarks, I think I can leave onlookers to compare the actual substance I have put up and linked, with your attempted rebuttals and the way you represent what I have had to say (of which your reaction to my highlighting Lewontin's confession is unfortunately a key case in point). I will simply underscore that the overwhelmingly predominant pattern of the fossil record - pace KL's declamations -- is of sudden appearance, stasis, and disappearance or continuation into the modern world. In the case of the emergence of man, the key unanswered question is to account for the FSCI involved in say transforming Lucy and kin into a modern human. That problem is apparently not even seriously acknowledged, much less addressed. And yet, the lack of ability of chance and necessity to plausibly create FSCI, while designers routinely do so, is decisive. If we exhibit a significant increment of FSCI relative to apes, then it implicates design in our origins. As to the geochronological timelines etc, all I am cautioning is that there are significant limitations in the methods and findings, which limitations, sadly, are too often not properly acknowledged. Epistemic humility would counsel a very different way . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

KF, You reference Lewontin. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. Could I ask you directly why you never add nor refer to that last sentence in the quotation you use? It seems directly relevant to the overall sense of the quote. Why do you never include it?JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

KF,
Please, stop misrepresenting me as dismissing the life’s work of professional groups.
Yet a few posts ago you plainly said:
35 –> An anthroplogist blinded and constrained by a priori evolutionary materialism and refusing to address the question of cogently explaining the origin of functionally specific complex bio-information is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Part of the problem. Not part of the solution. Parts of the problem people traditionally have their life's work dismissed, as it's wrong. Hence the "part of the problem" label. If their life's work was part of the solution, it would be right. Blinded and constrained people are generally not part of any activity resulting in a successful outcome.
strawmannish summary instead of being presented with the actual issue and facts in evidence,
But you have not actually dealt with the specific questions raised, the reason for this threads existence except in the most general of ways. You prefer taking offense to engaging on the issues. Why don't you put your sensibilities to one side for a moment and go to ATBC and engage with KL and explain exactly why you are right and KL is wrong. Or do it here, but don't pretend that the moderation delays help anyone but the ID supporters.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

JR: Please, stop misrepresenting me as dismissing the life's work of professional groups. That is plainly a polarising distortion of what I have actually said, made in a way that naturally would create a sense of offense on the part of those who hear the strawmannish summary instead of being presented with the actual issue and facts in evidence. Why not instead address on the particular facts what I have done, i.e. I have pointed out that there are several fields in science that at the moment are dominated by a priori evolutionary materialism that biases how findings and facts are interpreted, leading to a distortion of the methods of science and also to a distortion of how results are evaluated and reported. Let me cite Lewontin, again:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
Now, I am able to cite from the US NAS and NSTA in remarks that boil down to much the same, i.e both the leading Academy of Science in the leading scientific nation, and a leading umbrella group of science educators in the same country, back up the truth of Lewontin's remarks. If the imposition of a priori materialism on science is enough to trash the work of a generation of practitioners [a reasonable inference on your suggestion], then that would actually be an argument that such materialistic censorship should stop, forthwith. For that is an admission of destructiveness to the true purpose of science. My view is actually a bit different. Good facts are good facts, whoever has found them. But of course interpretations, models, theories and other explanatory or analytical constructs are not facts. They need to be checked against further facts, and adjusted or even abandoned if they are not empirically reliable. That happened with the Ptolemaic system of the world about 400 years ago, and then with the classical physics that resulted from that first major modern scientific revolution about 100 years ago. The pessimistic induction about science warns us that scientific findings are subject to error, but if they are empirically tested and reliable enough at any given time, we can use them for practical purposes. However, the sort of imposition Lewontin describes will undermine the ability to make an inference that is credible about the deep past especially. So, such censoring worldview level a prioris should be removed from the body of scientific practice. In short, it is time to correct the attempt to impose so called methodological naturalism on the definition and practice of science. The easiest way to do so would be to simply recongise the common sense observation that the "natural" has two distinct contrasts: the supernatural [the one those who champion meth nat emphasise] and the artificial. There is no reason why the artificial cannot be empirically investigated, as is routinely done in vast fields of applied science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

KL: I wish I did not have to reply to something like your last post forwarded by JR. The last post above, is a descent into outright personal abuse, in response to a point by point analysis of two posts earlier today that more than adequately address matters of substance. That analysis -- regrettably but necessarily -- included expose of slanderous misrepresentation and at least one outright lie; for, you know or should know that I have not quotemined Gould. That sort of behaviour is plainly uncivil and should be turned from; certainly, it is grounds for your being in moderation, if there is a track record of behaviour like that. As to the honest error of addressing you as sir, that that should be an occasion of further offense is simply beyond me. Good day, madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

JR: KL has been caught out in lying, willful misrepresentation in the teeth of easily accessible evidence, and slander. Are you defending that behaviour? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

K: Please, look again: you are here starting with functional systems and generating or modifying or deleting modest length extra coded segments under the direction and control of existing regulatory elements, or undergoing point -- basically one base -- muts. (Think of what happens when you send info down the Internet. The systems add on and strip off all sorts of headers, having chopped up the information into chunks. Are we to say the computers involved are creating additional functional information out of nothing? If there was a defect of one or a few bits that triggered a double send in two directions, have we created a new function de novo from chance and necessity? and the like ) In none of the cases are you looking at undirected chance plus necessity generating information of order 1,000 bits [500 bases] from scratch. Remember, until we are looking at ~ 500 - 1,000 new bits of functional information de novo, we are not looking at anything that even passes the basic threshold. That threshold is there for a reason: it marks a conservative border between the level of change on chance plus necessity that is analytically credible to be observable, and that which is not. Remember, the first challenge faced by evolutionary materialism is to create from the resources of some warm little pond or similar environment, a working life form that integrates metabolism and coded replication [invention of codes, data structures and algorithms along the way . . .]. That is going, on observed life forms, require 100+ kbits of info. And autocatalytic reaction sets under highly artificial and unlikely conditions do not point us in the direction of a von Neumann, code based self replicating automaton. Then, there is need to invent means of specialisation of cells and their integration into a complex body plan, through an embryological development process. Then, to do so for dozens of basic plans in a 10 mn year window. This requires moving from about 100 k - 1 mn bases to 10 mn bases or more. In fact, we do not have the de novo creation of 1,000 bits of info on observation, through undirected chance plus necessity, anywhere. Notice this from p. 19 of the PDF:
Similarly, the very deleterious effects of a 19-nucleotide deletion of MS2 containing important functional coded elements (several hairpins and the Shine-Dalgarno sequence) was overcome by gain-of-FCT mutations that restored those same elements to a greater or lesser degree. Considering the time- and populationscale constraints of the experiments, it is not surprising that, when large experimental deletions were constructed that removed the coding sequences of whole genes (rather than just frame shift mutations or short control elements), the deleted genes were not restored. However, it was surprising that more modest adaptive gain-of-FCT mutations were not seen either. The removal of T7 ligase resulted in point mutations and deletions in other genes involved in DNA metabolism, which are loss-of-FCT and modificationof- function mutations. Intentional deletion of the gene for T7 RNA polymerase and infection of a cell harboring a T3 polymerase gene yielded mutations that apparently strengthened weak T3 promoters, which are modification-of-function changes. Rearrangement of the order of bacteriophage T7 genes, thereby decreasing its fitness, did not provoke the evolutionary construction of new coded control elements. Rather, one existing element was lost (an E. coli polymerase termination site) and the gene order reverted, guided by flanking DNA that Springman et al. (2005) intentionally left in the viral DNA sequence . . .
In addition, it would be helpful to notice the observed mutation rates per nucleotide: 5 or so *10^-10 up to 6 * 10^-7 GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Reposted from ATBC, here is KL's post that is currently in moderation here. Honestly, you start a thread calling somebody out by name and you then make that person wait dozens of hours before they can respond. And people like KF nod approvingly, noting "and there is every advantage to having a conversation take the time to be analytical rather than hasty and hot". Yes, every advantage to you that is. KL 04/07/2011 11:59 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. Sorry, but until you have explained the fossils and their ages, distribution and features using another paradigm, the old one stands. Interesting that now you criticize my integrity and citizenship-how arrogant: “KL, you need to take some serious reflection time, and look at what you have been doing, and how you have dealt with other people. Not just on the topics and issues that happen to be under discussion, but as a duty of basic membership of the human civil community.” after you declared the work of my friends, associates and spouse to be a waste of career and a delusion, yet cannot answer to the specific claims that you and others here have made. And you wonder why the science community fails to take your claims seriously. Anyone can criticize the hypotheses made by scientists, but those critiques are meaningless until alternatives are offered. Finally, I never made any comments that would lead you to believe that I am a “sir”, yet you have assumed so. I am female, and my (male) spouse finds what has been posted here on this site completely off the mark regarding anthropology. You have demonstrated not only evasion, but dishonesty, which discerning onlookers should recognize easily. Original PostJemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

G.E.M of TKI
I have given links to details on the issues of fossils, including he points where they are relevant to the theory of intelligent design.
Links to text that explains exactly nothing about the topic relevant to this thread or KL.
With these, the issue is not “evolution,” a very broad and slippery-slope loaded term, as I pointed out regarding KL’s remarks.
Yes, common design == common descent.
including in the case of the overwhelming pattern of the fossil evidence.
Yes, the Cambrian “explosion”. And explosion so fast it was over in literally millions of years.
KL found himself reduced to lying by falsely alleging that I was quotemining on statements made by Johnson,
Have you ever thought about attempting to make an argument based on the actual primary literature?
That resort in the teeth of the now notorious “trade secret” of anthropology, should tell you a lot about what the fossils really say
Tell us all KF, what do the fossils “really say”?
even when the generally promoted timeline is taken at face value, without a grain or two of salt.
Having doubts as to the age of the earth too now are you? Or what exactly do you mean? If you have some specific accusation against some professional body then make it and provide your evidence.
Do I need to underscore it again: Cambrian Fossil Life revolution, which BTW, was known to Darwin. 10+ million base pairs of fresh DNA to account for, in a window of 10 MY, dozens of times over, and on one little planet, not the gamut of the observed cosmos.
Therefore ID.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Pardon, but I should note to you that by your actions of uncritically forwarding an uncivil comment above, you have been implicated in JR’s lies, slanders and misrepresentations of facts, issues and people.
What lies? What slanders? What misrepresentations of facts, issues and people? Be specific! Do you just expect me to go along with you? Support your accusations, serious accusations I would note! Unless you so support them I’ll have to assume your accusations are an attempt to construct a smokescreen that you can use to avoid addressing the actual specific questions that need addressing for you to claim any sort of victory. Walk away if you wish, but to accuse KL of lying without explaining what your evidence or even reasons for doing so is simply beyond the pale!JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

GEM of TKI,
Since there are ever so many talking points about fossils directed to me,
If you recall, upthread you dismiss the life work of several large groups of people. Entire professions. And on the basis of what evidence? The failure to explain the origin of a quality represented by something that you made up yourself, FSCI.
that fail to address the facts and arguments in my always linked through my handle
Ah, so now every point directed at you must first be tested against your pre-written arguments on your very own website? I don't think so. In any case, in your "section C" you spend many words explaining how it did not, could not, never would happen but none at all explaining how it did happen. In fact, you end that section as follows:
Thus, it is fair comment to observe that the design inference seems to better explain the generally accepted framework than the dominant paradigm, NDT.
Yes indeed. Evolution didn't do it. So it must have been design. But the trouble is you don't ever get round to actually "explaining" anything at all. Perhaps another possible inference you should consider is that you don't know as much about biological evolution as you think you know and that perhaps you are missing some crucial pieces of the puzzle? Have you ever considered that as a possibility?
the accusation that it is design theory that has a fossil problem is a false strawmannish accusation in the teeth of easily accessible evidence.
But earlier you said that common design explains the fossil record just as well as common descent and that there are no incompatibilities at that level. What I'm saying is that if you invent another name for common descent, common design, yet there is no difference between the two they why bother to invent the new name at all? It provides no differentiation. Nothing that can be done to test the two "explanations". Except of course, as I've just noted, the scales are not evenly matched at all. Your "explanation" is simply the design inference seems to better explain the generally accepted framework than the dominant paradigm. Not an explanation so much as a label. On an empty vessel.
Onlookers, would you believe that a discussion on those topics was just one click away at all times
Your self published website is really of little consequence in the larger scheme of things. If you expect me to simply go to your website, read your many thousands of densely packed words and be converted you are very much mistaken. What do you think you have, an utterly irrefutable argument? Let me quote from your website:
why is it that evolutionary materialist worldviews that go far beyond what is empirically and logically well-warranted are allowed to pass themselves off as "science," thus can freely go into the classroom, but empirically and logically/mathematically based serious challenges and alternatives to the claims of these worldviews that in fact appear in the peer-reviewed scientific and associated literature are excluded as "religion" [even when this is not at all objectively true]?
Yes, why is that? Perhaps it’s because, as was noted, these worldviews are so wildly successful in explaining the facts that we see about us. The facts like the fossils you refuse to address directly.
Do you therefore see what sort of shennanigans and abuse go on in evo mat hangouts such as ATBC, and why people interested in civil and serious discussion simply ignore such fever swamps full of angry mosquitoes?
If you wanted you could come over and have a serious conversation, in near-real time, with the people you claim to want to engage with on this thread, people like KL who are experts in their subject, who have spent large parts of their working lives studying hard breaking new ground on the cutting edge. You don't often get to speak to people who are experts in such fields. Do you do the same amount of work on a single subject? No, you don’t.
Anyway, here is the clip from Loennig of the Max Planck Institute, in his paper:
Blah blah blah. Explain the fossils.
I suggest in particular, that JR and KL spend some time pondering on the implications of the Smith two-tier controller model of a MIMO cybernetic system.
Blah blah blah. Explain the fossils. Why bring this up at all? You’ve an opportunity to talk to somebody who knows more about fossils then you’ve forgotten? Why attempt to distract? Why so evasive?
In short, JR and KL have tried to import to UD the typical ideological evo mat tactic of systematic misrepresentation of those they differ with. beyond a certain point, that is no longer a mere matter of having been misled, but willful, inexcusable and uncivil resistance to duty to the truth and to fairness.
Have I? thanks for letting me know that? How can I misrepresent you when you’ve said nothing of substance on the topic at hand? When all you want to do is talk about anything but the fossils, and when force to address the point you duck it by simply claiming that it’s all old ground covered on your website already. Perhaps you should publish your website in Nature, if it covers it all.
In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans
And how does Intelligent Design account for the origin of proteins, cells or body types?
Instead, what we have are just so stories, constrained by a materialistic straight jacket, and in a context where even the dating of fossils, is too often subject to ideological considerations and a priori worldview impositions.
I tell you what. Why don’t you go down to the library and get a book of fossils. Tell me what book; I’ll get the same one. Then you can point out the factual errors, page by page, line by line.
In short, the turnabout tactic on fossils, blatantly fails.
Quite the opposite. You have fooled nobody.
And, in failing, it points to the heart of the problem being ducked by the promoters of evo mat talking points: the origin of FSCO/I in living systems on warrant to best, empirically anchored explanation.
No, it’s the heart of the problem that you have invented so that you can claim that people are ducking it when in fact they can’t answer your challenge because FSCO/I is something you’ve made up yourself. Handy for claiming such victories, however Pyrrhic they are in the end.JemimaRacktouey_{April 7, 2011
April
04
Apr
7
07
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply