Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

Upright, I read your entire post, but I saw no reason to comment on it except to point out that it is at odds with the official UD moderation policy, as I'm sure you'll agree. If you dislike Diffaxial's style of argumentation, then you are free to say so, as you have already done many times. If your case is persuasive, then intelligent readers will be swayed. If it isn't, they won't. I see no reason why a biased application of the moderation policy is desirable or necessary. As Barry wrote:
We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position.
If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with Barry.serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Sure Serentipity, I already said there is nothing Diffaxial can say that I fear. But first. let's see what you have to offer in return. You took one trivial sentence out of my post and ignored the entire context that preceded it. That being that Diffaxial merely argued against the descriptive words and not the actual concept in play. He did the materialist dance around the meaning that Popper suggested conventionalist will do in order to shield their cherished theories from the potential of fate of falsification. I, on the other hand, simply placed the observable evidence in the blanks he asked for. In that vein, what else is there in my post that you agree with?Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped writes:
To be fair to UD, the above view is my own.
Indeed it is. The official moderation policy at UD is quite different:
UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position.
You wrote:
If Diffaxial was moderated by UD for some other reason, I have no idea what it was.
That's odd, because Clive explained it this morning right here in this thread:
265 Clive Hayden 06/01/2009 12:53 am Diffaxial, ——”No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies.” ——”I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding.” This is why I put you in moderation.
I hope you'll join me in requesting that Diffaxial be removed from moderation in light of the obvious double standard.serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

serendipity, I wasn't suggesting that two wrongs make a right. I was pointing out to David that his representation of Diffaxial as a wounded duck was utter nonsense. Also, the issue of moderation has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting adults from this "kind of stuff" - no more than the physical evidence of design has anything to do with its opponents or defenders. If you'll glance up at the top of this screen you'll see the phrase "Serving the Intelligent Design Community". This is an advocate website that operates a forum. ID is a minority view within the scientific and academic community (even though it is the majority view in the population as a whole). Neither of these have anything whatsoever to do with the empirical evidence for ID. The opponents of ID are not simply adhering to one of two paradigms they feel are interchangeably based on the best inference to the correct explanation of the natural world. Far from it. The vast majority of the opponents of ID are ideologically biased (to their very core) because of what they see as the personal implications of the evidence. Therefore (and this is the key) they have no desire at all to address the evidence on its face. You can see this in the comments themselves “I’m not interested in ramblings about the operation of language in the origin of biological information” as well as the pedantic obfuscation that follows (virtually always made on the false grounds of clarifying and understanding the concepts at hand). Therefore, this endeavor for UD has practical consequences. UD can open the door and this forum will sink into nothing but a shooting galleria for people who would love nothing more than to exercise their ideological spleens. In which case, ignoring the evidence for ID will rule the day, every day, and every minute of every day. Or, the website can try to force opponents to address the evidence when it’s given to them. In Diffaxial’s case, he was simply a fool. He actually asked for someone to give him the evidence in a proper “If x, then y format. When he got it, he simply could do no more than try to steer the argument into the weeds. I did not bite. His lesson is never ask an ID proponent specifically about the evidence. You can do that kind of thing over on the slum boards at AtBC because you can smother the ID proponent with meaningless and trivial volume. However, if you do it on UD, you are likely to be forced into dealing with it. The result of this, of course, is that UD has to tolerate the ridiculous claim that those mean and disingenuous ID proponents have prevented materialism from making its case. As much as I would like to, I simply cannot put that kind of inanity into its proper perspective. - - - - - - - To be fair to UD, the above view is my own. If Diffaxial was moderated by UD for some other reason, I have no idea what it was.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Clive, According to Barry Arrington, comments made on other blogs do not disqualify a person from commenting here at UD:
50 Barry Arrington 03/13/2009 10:41 pm CannuckianYankee writes: “I’m just wondering Clive, Let’s say a person such as, oh, PZ Meyers wanted to post here and he kept his language cordial and non-insulting, would he be welcome to post? I would be interested in reading what he has to say without all the hyperbole that is a part of his language in his own blog. I might enjoy seeing how others here would challenge him.” I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.
According to Barry, Bob O'H is "more than welcome" as long as he "minds his manners" here. Are you overriding Barry's stated policy? If so, then on what basis?serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, I didn't claim to be too busy to answer you about Bob O'Hara. You can look through his threads over at AtBC same as I can.Clive Hayden_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

"Yes people want to believe that macro is just a bunch of accumulated micro, but there isn’t anything to support that PoV." It requires faith as Will Provine admitted in a debate with Phillip Johnson at Stanford in 1994. "Phil also argues that we cannot conceive of a natural process that can produce both diversity and adaptations. It seems to be clear that, indeed, natural selection can account for adaptations because Phil believes the Hawaiian Drosophila evolved through naturalistic processes. In those seven-hundred some odd species of Drosophila there are some of the most exquisite adaptations you would ever lay your eyes upon or understand. Indeed, they are jammed with adaptations. And so Phil obviously believes that natural selection can produce exquisite adaptations. The question is only whether it can do so over long periods of time. It seems to me that it's a leap of faith to believe that natural selection can, but it's a little bitty leap. I even have faith that it's going to get light tomorrow morning. That is nothing but pure faith, but it's a little, bitty leap of faith. We have to keep in mind the sizes of leaps of faith." The issue is always information and simple changes are easily understood as are the Drosophila adaptations. But can natural selection along with the engines of variation produce the necessary information changes to go from microbes to man. The Drosophila are a bait and switch. If Provine had the real thing do you not think he would have produced it instead of talking about faith. Human nature supports ID again. And then he makes an odd statement that seems to imply that what is needed for evolution is within the organism. "As far as artificial selection is concerned, the point is that artificial selection is effective, not that it's purposeless. Over long periods of time, natural selection is sure to be more powerful than artificial selection, because it can "see" more of the organism that we ever could." An aside, it seems that Provine seems to be throwing gradualism under the bus in this debate which is consistent with Allen MacNeill's comments here. Provine sticks by common descent and it is only the mechanism that is under debate. He does not stick by gradualism. Here is the link http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htmjerry_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped writes:
And as for Diff being a sweet little girl on a bike ride to Grandma’s house...
Upright, To argue tu quoque misses the point, which is that the moderation here is inconsistent and heavily biased in favor of ID supporters. For what it's worth, I don't think either of you should be in moderation, nor do I think that the adult readers of this blog need to be coddled and protected from this kind of stuff. They can judge for themselves whether to grant it credence.serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

This Dr. Abel is amazing. I don't understand why he doesn't have a higher profile in the ID community. With his expertise in biology, chemistry, and information theory, he has everything required to place ID on a firm theoretical footing. Has he ever posted here?herb_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, I have given you links to two entire papers on the subject. May I simply suggest that you read them? Thanks.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

David, Take a look upthread and please post the number of comments that Diff made that directly addresses the concept he asked for (and then ignored once it was given to him). I can help. He didn't until 10, 200 words were posted (back and forth) trying to get him to address the actual concept and stop obfuscating over the words. A great number of those words were devoted directly to the fact he was obfuscating over the words in place of dealing with the context given. And here is another thing: he did not attempt to answer the concept until after I treated him with the level of handicapped understanding he was displaying. And when I say after, I mean immediately after - as in response to. And what was his long-awaited rebuttal to the actual concept being given to him? Diff:
“…Something not explained by its own physical properties” (e.g. “law” or “necessity,” ), “…and is not the product of chance…” Sound familiar? What you are essentially reproducing in this clause is something very close to the EF. So your prediction in essence reduces to, “If design is true then we should observe something that ‘passes’ the EF…”
In other words, his response was a nonsensical load of crap. Which was then immediately followed by a return to obfuscation. Perhaps that is what the moderators reacted to. - - - - - - - - - And as for Diff being a sweet little girl on a bike ride to Grandma's house: “Given that your grasp of these concepts lies somewhere between tenuous and distorted…” “I have no interest in rehearsing the associated creationist chestnuts with you” “I’m not interested in ramblings about the operation of Language and Mind in the origin of biological information” “The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point.” “This is beyond ridicule… ” “You can’t “continue” to do science when you haven’t done any in the first place. ” “ID isn’t a scientific theory.” “Don’t you find it a little disquieting that your theory has nothing to meaningful to contribute… ” “in my experience ID “considering” these issues consists of time in an armchair parasitically reinterpreting data obtained by others ” “you’re not getting anything done - which has patently been the case for the entire ID movement since its inception ” “I feel shortchanged, as your post is less than five thousand words and doesn’t have four or five bulleted lists ” “exactly the sort of test that has been absent in all of your replies, including Jerry’s imagined research.” “murky flapdoodle of the kind you and Upright manufacture ” “(Joe runs away). (Then Joe comes back)” “Armchair reinterpretation of others’ efforts, such as typifies ID, doesn’t often qualify as “quality work.” ” “I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding.” “No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies. They’re beyond useless on any side of the argument”Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, In the case of holes in the skull, what is the problem with seeing that as speciation and micro-evolution?Nakashima_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Yes people want to believe that macro is just a bunch of accumulated micro, but there isn't anything to support that PoV. IOW if all you have is to throw eons of time at something then you don't have anything.Joseph_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

"I was pointing out to Jerry, who seemed unaware of the fact, that Bob O’Hara no longer posts here because he is banned." I knew Bob O'Hara was banned for quite awhile now but didn't know when it started or for what. The last I remember him posting here was some time last summer. The last thing I remember is Dave referring to Bob as our token Irishman needed for diversity quotas.jerry_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Mr BiPed, In trying to understand your use of the term "physically inert" across several threads here at UD, I've asked if it is related to the same term used by Newell and Simon, or if it was related to HH Pattee's term "dynamically inert" as adopted by Abel. May i take your last post as a final statement that your "physically inert" is the same as Pattee's "dynamically inert"?Nakashima_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, you may not know that Diffaxial has been placed in moderation, and therefore cannot respond. It's striking that he has been placed in moderation and you haven't, even though he has never said anything approaching what you have said to him upthread, to wit:
"So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations..." "I may have overlooked it given your pompous certainty..." "I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have." "To be quite honest, up until your last post I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot..." "I want you to know that I am more than willing to slow down for you..."
That's just from one comment. Diffaxial refrains from personal comments and is in moderation, yet you routinely say this kind of stuff and (it seems) get away with it. Guess it depends which side you're on.David Kellogg_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, I was scanning over a copy of Abel’s paper and it occurred to me that I should not have placed the quotation marks where I did in post 259 referring to Abel’s paper. What I posted was “physically inert” which should have been physically “inert.” Adding the word physical was mine and not Abel's, although Abel's terms insist the exact same thing. Abel: “Sequencing is dynamically inert [58]. Even when activated analogs of ribonucleotide monomers are used in eutectic ice, incorporation of both purine and pyrimidine bases proceed at comparable rates and yields [59]. Monnard's paper provides additional evidence that the sequencing of untemplated single-stranded RNA polymerization in solution is dynamically inert – that the sequencing is not determined or ordered by physicochemical forces.” Later, Abel expands the phrase to say “physico-dynamically decoupled” in parentheses following his use of the word “inert” and the phrase "dynamically inert". I am not telling you this because it makes even a sliver of difference (because I gave you the context of my use of the term which is identical to Abel’s use of the term) as can be seen from the quote above, as well as from other references within his work: Abel: “Metabolism employs primarily proteins. The nucleotide sequences in mRNA prescribe the amino acid sequences that determine protein identity. DNA is largely inert. It plays no direct physicochemical role in protein binding, transport and catalysis.” Abel: “It could be argued that the engineering function of a folded protein is totally reducible to its physical molecular dynamics. But protein folding cannot be divorced from the causality of critical segments of primary structure sequencing. This sequencing was prescribed by the sequencing of Hamming block codes of nucleotides into triplet codons. This sequencing is largely dynamically inert. Any of the four nucleotides can be covalently bound next in the sequence. A linear digital cybernetic system exists wherein nucleotides function as representative symbols of "meaning." This particular codon "means" that particular amino acid, but not because of dynamical influence. No direct physicochemical forces between nucleotides and amino acids exist.” Abel: “The semantic/semiotic/bioengineering function required to make proteins requires dynamically inert configurable switch-settings and resortable physical symbol vehicles. Codon syntax communicates time-independent, non-physicodynamic “meaning” (prescription of biofunction).” Abel: “Literal genetic algorithms, not figurative ones, prescribe and control life. Nucleotides function in an objective, not just a human subjective symbolic capacity. The particular symbol selection at each decision node of nucleotide polymerization is isolated from physicodynamic causation by a dynamic discontinuity [196, 304, 305]. Although the instructions are physically instantiated into material symbol systems using physical symbol vehicles, the programming is fundamentally formal. Abel: “Semantic/semiotic/bioengineering function requires dynamically inert, resortable, physical symbol vehicles that represent time-independent, non-dynamic “meaning.” (e.g., codons).” [1] No empirical or rational basis exists for granting to physics or chemistry such non-dynamic capabilities of functional sequencing. Neither chance nor necessity (fixed law) can program configurable switches to integrate circuits or organize formal utility.” - - - - - - - - - - I hope this helps you understand the real issue, but you've given no reason to beleive it will. Perhaps some day you’ll be prepared to integrate the observable scientific evidence into your worldview. You might start by acknowledging the fundamental entailment of design as it has been spelled out here (and has been confirmed by Abel and thousands of others in various capacities).Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

232 Clive Hayden 05/30/2009 6:59 pm wrote:
Alan Fox,
——”Jerry, Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.”
Why would you be asking Jerry a question that I made about moderation?
I was pointing out to Jerry, who seemed unaware of the fact, that Bob O'Hara no longer posts here because he is banned. If you recall, you refused to rescind the ban, notwithstanding Barry Arrington's new moderation policy because you said Bob had been rude about UD at AtBC. I searched, but couldn't find a post of Bob's that was insulting to individuals, and wondered if you could give an example. You refused, claiming to be too busy. Hope that clarifies my previous comment.Alan Fox_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

I think all of us recognize that RM and NS are real and capable of changing life. The question is how much change are they capable of producing? And what should be remembered is that you place the limit anywhere after LUCA, you stop being a neo-Darwinist.tribune7_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, We can argue over just what macro evolution means but that somehow avoids the question of the origin of complex novel capabilities or to what is often referred to in the evolution literature as novelties. If you want to propose another definition for this phenomena then suggest one. How about "the origin of complex novel capabilities"? ;)Dave Wisker_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, We can argue over just what macro evolution means but that somehow avoids the question of the origin of complex novel capabilities or to what is often referred to in the evolution literature as novelties. If you want to propose another definition for this phenomena then suggest one. One of the issues under debate is that a lot of modern evolutionary biology asserts that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. This assumes that evolution proceeds on a gradual basis and that macro evolution is just enough micro evolution played out over time. There is no evidence that this is true for anything of substance in the evolution debate and in fact many in the evolutionary biology community consider gradualism or the Darwinian form of gradualism dead. So the people here who support ID use the term macro evolution to represent that divide that micro evolution cannot seem to cross and was expressed best in the Edge of Evolution. I am sure there are examples where there are some interesting new things generated by micro evolution but in general they are limited and from our point of view explain little of the important issues in the path from microbes to man let alone all of it and definitely not the path from molecules to man. I see that Joseph has also provided a definition of both micro and macro evolution that gets at the distinction we believe is at issue.jerry_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

arthur hunt, You will have to pardon my ignorance on this subject but I know very little about plants. So maybe as a help you could explain in layman's language or point to something that is fairly easy to understand about the differences between woody growth habits and the growth patterns in dandelions if that is different from herbaceous and what controls them in a plant organisms. Also could you do the same for perennial and annual plant mechanisms since it seems that the mutations in the experiment you described affected both. Meanwhile, I will try to review some biology on this but may not have enough time in the next 10 days since I will be traveling a lot.jerry_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Mr Nakashima: That is why people want to reduce macro-evolution to micro-evolution. At the time, it _was_ micro-evolution. Only our perspective allows us to call it macro-evolution. Exactly. That is why Stebbins was able to write his book Processes of Organic Evolution without referring to either term.Dave Wisker_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, For the sake of specificity, can we talk about the distinction of land animals by how many holes (0, 1, 2) there are in the skull? This is an important cladistic distinction. However, its importance is only after-the-fact. Assume one hole was the ancestral condition. At some point, a species arises where the hole closes during development. At another point, a gene duplication creates a species with two holes. Isn't that speciation, and micro-evolution? From one ancestral species, we now have three. A few million years have passed. A hundred million years later, we can look back and say, wow, those three species went on to have descendants that were quite varied. We categorize thousands of species over millions of years by different charaters. This character of hole in the skull turns out to be useful, and we assign it to a high level in the taxonomy. That is all after the fact. At the time, hole variation was a speciation event. I think this is a general idea, that differentiating characters at higher and higher levels in the taxonomy took place as speciation events further and further in the past. That is why people want to reduce macro-evolution to micro-evolution. At the time, it _was_ micro-evolution. Only our perspective allows us to call it macro-evolution.Nakashima_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, If you read that paper, you can see that the title is somewhat ironic. I don't see how it supports your position.Nakashima_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler @241
Let’s deal with the pedagogical issue first. I grant you that playing dumb may not have been the best gambit. Still, the confusion my “innocent” questions provoked was astonishing to me, particularly on that forum.
I don't see the confusion -- could you point to specific posts? My reading of it is that you were asking a question based on a misunderstanding of natural selection. Some of your respondents spent some time trying to tease out the underlying incorrect assumptions, which obviously takes more time than making erroneous statements in the first place.
Now to your prior point. The consensus of what “natural selection” is on that thread is pretty meaningless to me. I contend that n.s. is a myth, a word game at best. It merely describes being alive. Any organism that is “fit” is by definition, alive.
You are mistaken. As I noted above, and as several people at RichardDawkins.net attempted to explain to you, natural selection is a result of imperfect replication leading to differential reproductive success. It's not that complex a concept. Natural selection is readily observed; it is not a myth.
Not only that, but the idea is based on, as far as I can tell, three faulty assumptions.
And those are?
In any case, my contention is that the reigning scientific orthodoxy regarding life is about as “scientific” as a flat earth.
Modern evolutionary theory is well supported by empirical evidence. It will take more than your simple assertions to refute that. Personally, I think that Dr. Behe's work on the edge of evolution is likely to show that MET is insufficient, but that doesn't mean that it is completely worthless. Until ID researchers produce empirical evidence demonstrating the limitations of MET mechanisms, it is the only scientific game in town.
This battle won’t be won in this generation in academia. There are too many vested and intrenched interests who will literally have to die off before this stranglehold will be broken. The best that any of us, I assume you are one of “us,” I don’t know you, can hope for is to persuade uncommitted or genuinely inquisitive people. Ruling castes never go easily into the night. I think the next generation of thinkers will have a shot at setting things right and they will be standing on the shoulders of the ID giants of today who are making extreme sacrifices, the academic equivalent of Iwo Jima (I’m a retired infantry Marine and I’m not exaggerating, much, about the sacrifices, when I say that - to invest ones life in academic pursuits and then put it all on the line in the defense of truth is very admirable - I like to think I’d do it but who knows), but I’ll never see the day.
A rigorous, falsifiable theory of ID that makes testable predictions combined with empirical evidence derived from those tests is all that is required. Certainly there will be those who oppose ID on philosophical grounds, but real scientific evidence cannot be ignored.
Do organisms adapt to their environments? Yes. But that is not “natural selection” at work.
More precisely, populations adapt, not individual organisms. That adaptation takes place via differential reproductive success based on random variations in replication. That process is what is meant by "natural selection."
What we see is the interplay of exquisitely designed organisms that can not only survive where they are but also have the capability, built in, to adapt to changing circumstances.
I agree. Unfortunately, neither of us, nor any ID researchers, have any empirical evidence to support the claim of design. ID is a nascent theory. We shouldn't overstate our case.
The genetic language, I predict (duh), will turn out to be the most complex and intricate language in the universe. When we think of what goes on in a living organism, all of it driven by information encoded in DNA, we should immediately infer that there is something more at play than time, chance, and necessity. The crux of my argument (I’ll present it in full blown form later) is that to explain life one must explain information. This claim, to my knowledge, is uncontroversial. Therefore, the true explanation for life will be able to account for information. But natural processes (physics - or “natural selection” plus genetic mutation - or ANY other naturalistic explanation, one that denies the place of mind) cannot possibly account for information because nothing in physics (or chemistry) can explain symbols and rules for the use of those symbols. Only mind can do that. Therefore, the game is OVER. All anyone has to do is “do the math.” Either mind or “no mind.” “No mind” cannot explain information, and therefore it cannot explain life. Therefore mind is the answer. It’s really that simple. For anyone who takes reason seriously, that is. Obviously, “they” don’t but outsiders looking in may. Anyway, thanks for your comments and I’ll get back out to Dawkins’ web site and be much more direct. Give them something to really shoot at.
I'm very interested to see your argument. I would note that one common problem with the "argument from information" is that ID proponents too often fail to clearly define what they mean by "information," switching from Shannon information to Kolmogorov complexity to imprecise English language definitions willy nilly. The mathematical case needs to be made very clearly and consistently. The other problem typically seen with this argument is failure to take into account known evolutionary mechanisms. The most common consequence of this is that the "information" measured is ultimately computed as 2 raised to the number of bits assumed to be required to describe the artifact in question. This is, in fact, the probability of the artifact coming into existence de novo. That is not what MET claims happens. If you can avoid those two problems, you will indeed give the folks at RichardDawkins.net a run for their money. Good luck, JJJayM_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial:
I’ve been BEGGING for a coherent entailment and a doable test thereof for weeks. I’m still waiting,
I have provided such an entailment. YOU just appear to be too messed up to understand it. To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce the object/ event in question. IOW ID is testable and falsifiable. What part of that don’t you guys understand? Answer that question diff. You have also FAILED to fill in the blanks: “If natural selection is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then natural selection is at risk of disconfirmation.” “If random variation is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then random variation is at risk of disconfirmation.” diffaxial had tried to answer those pertaining to the theory of evolution but the answers were so far off base they were pathetic. Stop avoiding that. All you are doing is proving that you don't have a clue.Joseph_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Gene dupication- With gene duplication that duplicated gene requires a binding site in its regulatory region. And there is a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates how difficult it is to get ONE mutation to get a binding site- that is one mi=utation to complete the sequence. waiting for two mutations. Not only that but if that new gene does not change the protein product will be just the same as the first gene's, meaning all you get is another one of those proteins. So not only do you need a new binding site you also need that new gene to change such that it produces a different protein that can then also do something different. Then there are other transcription factors required. So the bottom line is undirected, goal-less evolution just does not have enough time. And time is all you have to resolve the problems I just mentioned.Joseph_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Joseph, just to clarify: is the agency of the spiders, termites, and beavers intelligent?
A spider is an agency. A beaver is an agency. A termite is an agency. They all fit the definition of "intelligent" as it pertains to ID. That is "intelligence" can produce counterflow. (intelligent and agent are synonyms)Joseph_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker:
Steve Stanley, in his book Macroevolution: Pattern and Process defined it as simply evolution above the species level.
Yet "species" is very ambiguous. Also YECs accept "evolution" above the species level. The definition of macroevolution that makes a distinction is the following:
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution” 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.
The point being by using the the term the way that evolutionary biologists use it there isn't any debate about macro- and that means that definition is useless and misleading.Joseph_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply