Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As we have seen, Larry Moran channeled Ace Ventura when he falsely claimed I do not understand Darwinism and then, when challenged to back up his claim, came up with exactly bupkis.

In the course of demonstrating his own incompetence, Larry gave us this gem of revisionist history:

But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists. Junk DNA confers no fitness advantage on the individual. It’s certainly detrimental at some level because it uses up resources for no benefit. If Darwinists were presented with the possibility of junk DNA back in 1970 then they would almost certainly have rejected it because it doesn’t make sense in a strictly Darwinian world. In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today.

I and several other posters here at UD debunked Larry’s revisionism.

Now, over at ENV, Casey Luskin does a body slam on post-ENCODE revisionism such as Larry put on display above with his Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions.   Luskin leaves Larry nowhere to hide.

In the space of just a couple of days Professor of Biochemistry Larry Moran has been taken down not once but twice by mere lawyers.  Ouch and double ouch.  I’m reminded of Tommy Boy:

50118417

 

 

 

Comments
Jack Jones: No, Underlying scientific laws and the uniformity of nature are best explained by design and not by chance. Yet, the scientific theory of gravity has no design component, but is very successful at predicting the position of planets. Design is, therefore, extraneous.Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
"The potential is reproduction, and from that, evolution theory provides a scientific explanation for what happened afterwards — even if the first life was designed." There is no evidence that reproduction originated by chance. You are begging the question again and assuming that the ability came into being by chance. "evolution theory provides a scientific explanation" There is no "evolution theory" in some singular sense. Evolutionists can't agree on what the theory is. "A designer is extraneous to this explanation" On the contrary, it is consistent with the law of Biogenesis. You are appealing to unknown extraneous chemistry when you believe chemistry operated differently in the past. "just as angels are extraneous to explaining planetary motion. (You have ignored the argument twice now.) " No, Underlying scientific laws and the uniformity of nature are best explained by design and not by chance. The idea that the universe can be understood and that it has underlying laws that can be discovered is consistent with a design origin for the universe and inconsistent with one where " stuff happens for no reason" provides no basis for science. "alter-Jack: To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how planets move” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in the planets, came about by chance." No, that is a Strawman, Design best explains the lawful nature of the universe which explains things like Planetary Motion etc.Jack Jones
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how life evolves” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in a first living organism (on your worldview), came about by chance. The potential is reproduction, and from that, evolution theory provides a scientific explanation for what happened afterwards — even if the first life was designed. A designer is extraneous to this explanation, just as angels are extraneous to explaining planetary motion. (You have ignored the argument twice now.) alter-Jack: To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how planets move” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in the planets, came about by chance. Zachriel
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
"The argument is that design is an extraneous entity for explaining planetary motions, or for how life evolves." To say that design is an extraneous entity for "how life evolves" is to assume that the potential which would already reside in a first living organism (on your worldview), came about by chance. Furthermore, to believe life can originate spontaneously in nature from non living matter, is not consistent with how nature is known to operate. You can only call it extraneous if you first assume a first living organism came about by chance.Jack Jones
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: No, because if you believe that all life is related from one initial living organism and your position was true, then the potential would have already been contained in the machinery and DNA of a first living organism. If you mean the ability to reproduce, perhaps; but that is all that is required as a precept; just as the existence of planets is all that is required as a precept to explain their motions. Jack Jones: When you argue against design then you are begging the question, because you are assuming that a first living organism came into being by chance. The argument is that design is an extraneous entity for explaining planetary motions, or for how life evolves.Zachriel
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
@Zach "Similarly, a designer is an extraneous entity for explaining how life has diversified, regardless of how life began." No, because if you believe that all life is related from one initial living organism and your position was true, then the potential would have already been contained in the machinery and DNA of a first living organism. When you argue against design then you are begging the question, because you are assuming that a first living organism came into being by chance. Instead of fallaciously begging the question, you need to demonstrate that life originated spontaneously in nature. If you want to argue against design in biology then you cannot beg the question and first assume a living organism came into being by chance, You have to demonstrate it. If you do not want to argue for the origin of life then you cannot argue against design .Jack Jones
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: Design Vs Chance when it comes to biology starts with the origin of life, If you want to argue against Design in biology then you have to deal with the origin of life, if you do not want to deal with the origin of life then you can’t argue against Design. Angels are extraneous entities for explaining the motions of the planets, regardless of how the planets were formed. Similarly, a designer is an extraneous entity for explaining how life has diversified, regardless of how life began.Zachriel
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Design Vs Chance when it comes to biology starts with the origin of life, If you want to argue against Design in biology then you have to deal with the origin of life, if you do not want to deal with the origin of life then you can't argue against Design.Jack Jones
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: having been shown that if you appeal to cars as non reproducing entities and to “sticky” chemicals, it is then entirely in order for someone to respond by pointing to Darwin’s warm little pond of sticky molecules and the challenge to get to reproduction. That wouldn't make it a strawman. In any case, we didn't appeal to cars. That was drc466, who drew an analogy of random re-assembly of car parts to evolution, not the origin of cars to the origin of life.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Z, you are doubling down, having been shown that if you appeal to cars as non reproducing entities and to "sticky" chemicals, it is then entirely in order for someone to respond by pointing to Darwin's warm little pond of sticky molecules and the challenge to get to reproduction. Which just happens to be the root of the darwinist tree of life, OOL. That you have no cogent response reveals just how hollow your talking point was, especially when a 200 year old challenge is on the table. KFkairosfocus
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: Nope, strawman caricature. As noted above, you need to add strawman to things you do not understand.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Z, Let's roll the tape from 112:
Zachriel, 104: drc466: True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function. [Z:] Randomly? Cars don’t reproduce, and car parts tend not to be sticky and recombine in many interesting way, like molecules, so false. However, organisms do reproduce, molecules do tend to be sticky and interact in many different ways, populations can and do evolve, and we have evidence of billions of years of adaptive evolution. [KF:] Nope, strawman caricature. At OOL, the first pivotal context, the origin of the FSCO/I involved in the code using, von Neumann self replicating system needs to be reasonably accounted for on observed adequate cause. The only relevant blind watchmaker forces there are those of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics in that pond, ocean vent, comet core or whatever. And, the only actually observed adequate and needle in haystack plausible cause of FSCO/I is design. Your life forms reproduce, magic of chance variation and happenstance of differential reproductive success magic wand fails at the root of the tree of life. Nor is this news. 50 years before Darwin’s arguments, Paley not only wrote about stumbling on a stone vs finding a watch in a field in Ch 1 of Nat Theol. Nope, in that 1802 work, his second short chapter . . .
Do you see how the OOL context becomes immediately, directly relevant? Chemicals in Darwin's warm little pond etc do not reproduce, but we are being expected to accept them as blindly stumbling on reproduction as they are "sticky." OOL is relevant, builds directly on what is put in play and brings out the major adequate empirically grounded cause gap. And the consistent dodging around the point made by Paley in Ch 2 is also glaring. KFkairosfocus
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: OOL and particularly origin of vNkSR is material to the issue as you well know. No, it wasn't. The analogy presupposed the existence of a working automobile.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
We weren’t discussing the origin of life or the origin of cars, but the evolution of life, and the analogy to the random re-assortment of car parts.
How life originated, ie by design or by happenstance physicochemical processes, determines how it evolved, ie by design or by happenstance physicochemical processes. How cars originated, ie by design or happenstance physicochemical processes, determines how they operate, ie by design or by happenstance physicochemical processes.Virgil Cain
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Z, OOL and particularly origin of vNkSR is material to the issue as you well know. One of the central organisation and information origins questions is origin of cell based life with encapsulation, smart gating, metabolic automaton and integral self replication that uses coded information . . . at the root of the tree of life in a context where appeal to the magic of chance variation and differential reproductive success fails as the origin of reproduction using vNkSR is precisely what is in question as a case of origin of FSCO/I. So this is experimentum crucis, or rather its cousin. Trying to suggest a disanalogy by saying cars don't reproduce then when the FSCO/I origin question put on the table by Paley in 1802 is raised by way of the self replicating watch thought exercise, hopping over to but evo is after origin of reproduction is as clear a case of cherry picking to suit your agenda as I have seen. FYI, you put reproduction on the table when you thought it suited you. I took it up and highlighted what it brings up. Now you want to duck the FSCO/I origin question by ruling convenient datum lines, when all along you know that in both HS and College cases, OOL is routinely presented with the wider theory, often in such a way as to give a false impression of effective certainty or "no big problem." Consider your bluff called and raised. KFkairosfocus
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: then understand on the issue of OOL We weren't discussing the origin of life or the origin of cars, but the evolution of life, and the analogy to the random re-assortment of car parts.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Z, strawman caricature again, you have misrepresented what I said and in so doing set up and knocked over a strawman then used that to push a talking point that I am a dumb ignoramus. As in ad hominem, well poisoning emphasis. I suggest you start with Paley, then understand on the issue of OOL involving von Neumann kinematic self replication [vNkSR] why the cars do not reproduce argument is 200 years out of date. As in, answered before Darwin composed his theory by a generation. And BTW the common praxis of representing Paley by Ch 1 then making an objection that does not reckon squarely with the immediately following Ch 2 self replicating watch is a strawman too. If you want me to spell it our more, for self replicating watch in ch 2 read self replicating car -- and the claimed analogy collapses into a strawman caricature, especially post 1948 - 57 as both the genetic code and the vNkSR were put on the table. As in the matter was addressed on a design perspective by 1802; Darwin wrote in 1859. Lastly, the self replication facility is at the root of the tree of life, the oh it's a limited theory ducks the pivotal issue, rather than addressing it fairly. Speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
It’s no different in that respect than any other theory with limited domain.
Not having a theory is no different in that respect than any other theory with limited domain- really? WowVirgil Cain
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: Chance evolutionists are strange, they say, give us an existing living organism, with complex functional machinery, give us DNA and its functions which is far more complex than any windows programme, give us the complex function of reproduction. It's no different in that respect than any other theory with limited domain. Given the Sun and planets, Newton's theory explains how they move.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
"Cars don’t reproduce, and the parts don’t connect in ways similar to molecular interactions." A very strange objection, If a car that reproduced was discovered then I would want to know who the inventor of this car was, I wouldn't assume it came about by chance. Chance evolutionists are strange, they say, give us an existing living organism, with complex functional machinery, give us DNA and its functions which is far more complex than any windows programme, give us the complex function of reproduction. Then they turn around and claim no designer is needed, very strange people indeed.Jack Jones
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Earth to Zachriel: Biological reproduction is the very thing you need to explain and you cannot. That means you lose, again. Not that you would care or understand that.Virgil Cain
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Nope, strawman caricature. Add strawman to the things you don't understand. We were presented an analogy, and explained why the analogy doesn't hold. Cars don't reproduce, and the parts don't connect in ways similar to molecular interactions.Zachriel
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Zachriel, 104:
drc466: True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function. [Z:] Randomly? Cars don’t reproduce, and car parts tend not to be sticky and recombine in many interesting way, like molecules, so false. However, organisms do reproduce, molecules do tend to be sticky and interact in many different ways, populations can and do evolve, and we have evidence of billions of years of adaptive evolution.
Nope, strawman caricature. At OOL, the first pivotal context, the origin of the FSCO/I involved in the code using, von Neumann self replicating system needs to be reasonably accounted for on observed adequate cause. The only relevant blind watchmaker forces there are those of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics in that pond, ocean vent, comet core or whatever. And, the only actually observed adequate and needle in haystack plausible cause of FSCO/I is design. Your life forms reproduce, magic of chance variation and happenstance of differential reproductive success magic wand fails at the root of the tree of life. Nor is this news. 50 years before Darwin's arguments, Paley not only wrote about stumbling on a stone vs finding a watch in a field in Ch 1 of Nat Theol. Nope, in that 1802 work, his second short chapter, only a couple of pages on, argued:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to
[--> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, "stickiness" of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]
all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [--> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] -- the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [--> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art
[--> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic "supernatural") vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]
. . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [--> i.e. design]. . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [--> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . . Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [--> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. "Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]
Once the actual FSCO/I rich nature of cell based life and the similar FSCO/I involved in self replication were understood, the force of this argument redoubled. No, trying to dismiss the world of technology as irrelevant to cell based life as such reproduces, fails. Indeed, such a dismissal becomes a strawman caricature. As has been repeatedly pointed out at UD, but just as often, studiously ignored by determined objectors. It is time to do better than this, Z. KFkairosfocus
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
asauber: Why, Zachie? Consider it a peccadillo, if you like.Zachriel
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Pz Myers believes himself to be a fish, Zach believes himself to be a rat. Any reasonable person will believe them to be loopy.Jack Jones
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Some of my best friends are humans.Mung
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
"Actually, we’re rather fond of the humans." Why, Zachie? Andrewasauber
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Lutesuite has,without a doubt, proven chivalry still exists. Leaving the safety of the sandwalk and venturing into the cold wet streets of uncommon descent, laying his coat across each puddle his leader blindly stumbles upon! Kudos!beau
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: Well you do not believe there is any line of demarcation between rats and humans ... Vive la différence ! Jack Jones: Yet you would probably not have a problem with rats being poisoned but if that were the case, if there is no line of demarcation separating rats from Humans, then you wouldn’t have any problem with Humans being poisoned too. Actually, we're rather fond of the humans.Zachriel
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Zach said "That’s the whole point, of course, life is all one big family" Well you do not believe there is any line of demarcation between rats and humans, Yet you would probably not have a problem with rats being poisoned but if that were the case, if there is no line of demarcation separating rats from Humans, then you wouldn't have any problem with Humans being poisoned too.Jack Jones
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply