Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Selling Stupid

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Granville Sewell’s sin is pointing out the obvious that anyone can understand. This represents a tremendous threat. As David Berlinski has observed, Darwinists — who have invested their worldview and even their careers in Darwinian storytelling — react with understandable hostility when told that their “theory” is simply not credible.

It’s really easy to figure out that the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection cannot possibly do that with which it is credited. Life is fundamentally based on information and information processing — a software computer program and its associated, highly functionally integrated execution hardware. Computer programs don’t write themselves, and they especially don’t write themselves when random errors are thrown into the code. The fact that biological computer programs can survive random errors with remarkable robustness is evidence of tremendously sophisticated fault-tolerance engineering. The same goes for the hardware machinery of life.

One of my specialties in aerospace R&D engineering is guidance, navigation and control software. The task of designing GN&C algorithms and the associated hardware that would permit an ornithopter to land on a swaying tree branch in gusting wind is so far ahead of our most sophisticated human technology that we can only dream about such a thing. Yet, birds do this with ease.

Darwinists want us to believe that this all came about through a process of throwing monkey wrenches in working machinery and introducing random errors into highly sophisticated computer code.

In addition, they argue that because the sun provides energy available to do work, all the obvious engineering hurdles can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion.

This is simply not credible.

In fact, it’s downright stupid.

Selling stupid is a tough assignment.

No wonder Darwinists have their panties in a bunch.

Comments
Elizabeth Liddle:
Quibbling about the difference between EAs and GAs doesn’t alter my point, unless you are determined not to get my point. Which it is starting to seem like, tbh.
It could be seen as quibbling. I thought about it earlier but did not say anything because you used a broader category and you said "some." But lately it appears like you're making global claims that apply to all EA/GAs. So I brought it up. You would agree, wouldn't you, that not all GA's write code? And that not all EA's write code? And that not all EA's and GA's evolve the code they write? Do you know what a DSL is?Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
It is possible to write code-writing-code. That’s what a GA is.
The sad fact is, you're completely serious. Almost as sad, DrBot is encouraging this sort of thing. Your first statement above is not in dispute and has never been in dispute. I can write code that writes code, and which even executes the code it writes, in the Ruby programming language, without the use of a GA. But to assert that that is what a GA is? That a GA is "code-writing-code"? No. And then to argue that this demonstrates that computer programs can and do write themselves? Again, no. And then I get accused of having no interest in (or perhaps no ability to engage in) serious debate, of learning anything at all, and sometimes coming across as having a total lack of understanding of these subjects. Sad, truly sad.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
DrBot:
avida is not a targeted search.
MathGrrl and I never discussed Avida. And the person claiming Avida was a targeted search was Joseph, in #26, not me.
Mung, I see little point in carrying on conversations with you.
It would help if you get your facts straight.
...when viewed as a whole the system (software) writes its own code (more software) It is obvious and only someone willfully trying to distort and poison the debate would call it false.
Go back and read what Elizabeth was claiming. There is a difference between a program writing code on it's own and a program writing it's own code. In response to the claim in the OP:
Computer programs don’t write themselves
Elizabeth responded:
Well, yes, they do. Or can. That’s exactly what evolutionary algorithms do – evolve their own code.
That is not "exactly what EA's do." And in context it's clear that she meant what she wrote as a rebuttal to the claim in the OP. It clearly amounts to a claim that EA's write themselves.
Mung, I see little point in carrying on conversations with you. I get the impression you have no interest in (or perhaps no ability to engage in) serious debate, of learning anything at all, and you sometimes come across as having a total lack of understanding of these subjects (which may just be obfuscation).
The FEA thread comes to mind. In what sense is the genome or chromosome in a GA designed? I really don't care if you carry on a conversation or not, but it's not because I don't know what I'm talking about, or can't learn, or am not interested in serious debate. I'm interested in honest debate. Now, what claim would you like me to retract on the basis that it is false, or mistaken, or misguided? The one that all GA's and all EA's are not GP's? The one that Lizzie started out talking about EA's but shifted to GA's when what she really has in mind are GP's? The one that EA's don't write their own code?Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Mung:
…we can’t invoke Darwinian processes to account for something that is the simplest self-replicator that can evolve by Darwinian processes.
Life, as we know it, does not consist of simple self-replicators. A simple cell is stunningly complex. Hello.
I'm not sure why you are doing this, Mung. It makes communication extremely difficult. Likewise, what I said about programs evolving their own code was loose, but not false. It is possible to write code-writing-code. That's what a GA is. Quibbling about the difference between EAs and GAs doesn't alter my point, unless you are determined not to get my point. Which it is starting to seem like, tbh. I say this reluctantly, and hope to be proved wrong. :( LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
mung, you said
And you’re confusing GA’s with Genetic Programming. You started out talking about EA’s, not GA’s.
Then your link goes to this
GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance.
where a GA is described, It's right there, on the first page, a description of a GA, yet you said it was different to a GA and use that as evidence.!!! GP is a specific approach to using GA's for creating programs - its right there, on the page you linked to! surely only someone willfully trying to distort and poison the debate would miss something like that, or perhaps you just don't get it ;)
It wasn’t a little loose, it was flat out false. So it is hardly the case that it was “essentially true.” Sheesh.
It was badly phrased, but not false - when viewed as a whole the system (software) writes its own code (more software) It is obvious and only someone willfully trying to distort and poison the debate would call it false.
What are you talking about. MathGrrl never discussed search algorithms. He avoided it like the plague.
avida is not a targeted search. Remember those bits? I think you do, don't you (otherwise it would indicate that you didn't read the discussions, making what you just said a lie?) Mung, I see little point in carrying on conversations with you. I get the impression you have no interest in (or perhaps no ability to engage in) serious debate, of learning anything at all, and you sometimes come across as having a total lack of understanding of these subjects (which may just be obfuscation). Perhaps, like Elizabeth suggested, you a lawyer, one who doesn't understand science?DrBot
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
DrBot:
Which is where your argument with mathgrrl comes from – she was using the correct terminology in the context of discussions about search algorithms.
What are you talking about. MathGrrl never discussed search algorithms. He avoided it like the plague. He wouldn't even engage on the subject of what a target was.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
And while I agree that it might have been a little loose to say that “GAs write their own code” it’s essentially true: A GA (ie. Virtual environment, self-replicators and fitness function) can result in the writing of code that was not written by a human designer. Often that code is creative, innovative and useful.
It wasn't a little loose, it was flat out false. So it is hardly the case that it was "essentially true." Sheesh. And you're confusing GA's with Genetic Programming. You started out talking about EA's, not GA's. http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk/
While it is common to describe GP as evolving programs, GP is not typically used to evolve programs in the familiar Turing-complete languages humans normally use for software development. It is instead more common to evolve programs (or expressions or formulae) in a more constrained and often domain-specific language.
Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Let me quote the OP:
Life is fundamentally based on information and information processing — a software computer program and its associated, highly functionally integrated execution hardware. Computer programs don’t write themselves, and they especially don’t write themselves when random errors are thrown into the code.
Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
...we can’t invoke Darwinian processes to account for something that is the simplest self-replicator that can evolve by Darwinian processes.
Life, as we know it, does not consist of simple self-replicators. A simple cell is stunningly complex. Hello.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
The second is the one I am addressing here, and was advanced by Gil, and others – that evolutionary processes (in other words replication with variation that results in differential reproduction) can’t result in complex functions. It can.
Well Elizabeth, there you go equivocating again. Is it that you just can't help yourself? Please provide your absolute best example of an evolutionary process bringing about complex functions. Even better, and more to the point, provide one from nature in which the selection mechanism is blind, unguided, purposeless, non-teleological, unintentional, etc. and the source of variation is likewise.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
There is plenty of evidence, from both biology and GAs, that Darwinian evolution works once you’ve got the ball rolling. The question is, does it require an Intelligent Designer to roll that initial ball?
Well, in the case of GA’s, we know the answer is yes. So if you can use GA’s to assert the power of chance + selection, why can’t we use GA’s as evidence for the presence of design? Do you think GA’s indicate that there is design in life Lizzie? Or can they only be used when they support a particular view.
Since I've been posting here, I've encountered two arguments for ID. One I think has potential validity. The other I don't think does. The second is the one I am addressing here, and was advanced by Gil, and others - that evolutionary processes (in other words replication with variation that results in differential reproduction) can't result in complex functions. It can. And while I agree that it might have been a little loose to say that "GAs write their own code" it's essentially true: A GA (ie. Virtual environment, self-replicators and fitness function) can result in the writing of code that was not written by a human designer. Often that code is creative, innovative and useful. So the argument that we must infer ID because Darwinian processes can't result in complex innovative functions I think is falsified. However, the argument that that a Darwin-capable self-replicator is sufficiently complex that it must be designed by a designer, has, potential merit, because we can't invoke Darwinian processes to account for something that is the simplest self-replicator that can evolve by Darwinian processes. I think it's important to separate these two - it's simply the difference between the Origin of Species and the Origin of Life. I think Darwinian evolution is good for the Origin of Species - no ID argument is required. But Darwin himself did not attempt to solve the Origin of Life problem. Actually there's one other argument that I should mention, that perhaps has a little merit, IMO: that Darwinian natural selection works fine, but that the mechanisms of variance must be designed - random variation isn't good enough. I think this also fails though, because we know that most mutations, at least in a well-adapted species, are neutral or slightly deleterious, and we also know that even when this is true in an GA, where the variants really are randomised, evolution still occurs. So from my PoV, you guys still have the OOL argument :) But I have it in my sights....Elizabeth Liddle
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Indium:
your question “Do genetic algorithms write themselves?” is, well, not even wrong.
The answer is not that the question is not even wrong, the answer is no, GA's do not write themselves. If you scroll up in the thread you would see it claimed that EA's evolve their own code. Start with post #12 please.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Well, there you have it. The power of chance + necessity.
Those choosy snowflakes!Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
There is plenty of evidence, from both biology and GAs, that Darwinian evolution works once you’ve got the ball rolling. The question is, does it require an Intelligent Designer to roll that initial ball?
Well, in the case of GA's, we know the answer is yes. So if you can use GA's to assert the power of chance + selection, why can't we use GA's as evidence for the presence of design? Do you think GA's indicate that there is design in life Lizzie? Or can they only be used when they support a particular view.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
I love Lizzie's analogies :) Consider a snowflake. Tossed by the winds. Gently dropping to earth due to the inexorable pull of necessity (gravity). It lands. Many snowflakes land. They spell, "Welcome to Aruba, kairosfocus." Well, there you have it. The power of chance + necessity.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, Avida incorporates “blind undirected processes” in that the mutations are random, and the only criteria that decides whether or not an organism “breeds” is whether it performs some function.
This is wrong. Did you even read the paper? All organisms in the initial population start out able to replicate but not performing any of the logic functions.
Experiments began with an ancestor that could replicate but could not perform any logic functions.
Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
DrBot:
We are talking about evolutionary processes which require replication with variation where the variety affects replication rates.
As a point of fact, Elizabeth was talking about code that writes itself.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Indium:
Somehow I get the impression that neither Mung nor kf understand the concept of a “model”.
Latecomer are you? The subject of GA's as evolutionary models or simulations has already been discussed in a previous thread. We're beyond that now.Mung
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Well, I’d certainly like to know what kind of barriers you envisage. Can you give an example? Of a transition you think is impossible, or at least, very unlikely?
Possible candidates are, of course, chemical/mechanical barriers. Let me give you an example by analogy. If I handed you a brand new Rubic's Cube and told you to solve it, assuming you are a person of normal intelligence, you would be able to do it sooner or later. (Maybe you would have to read a book and learn some tricks.) However, if I gave a Rubic's Cube for which I rearranged the colored dots such that it can never be solved, and you happened not to notice my little gag, why then, of course, you would never be able solve it. There would be no pathway to the standard solution. What chemical barriers exist in nature with regards to blind evolution of the particular known DNA replicator? Nobody knows. In engineering we have to prove our concepts from start to finish, especially when lives are at stake. We have to build models and test them. That's when you're liable to find holes in your design.
So what candidate barriers do you see as preventing the steady incremental adaptive evolution, and the intermittent divergence, of populations over time from accumulating large scale differences between the extant populations and their remote ancestors or cousins?
Nobody knows if chemical/mechanical pathways exist for the kind of large scale blind evolutionary change Again, if you want to convince this engineer, the onus is on you, not me, to demonstrate that the known sources of variation + natural selection are sufficient to generate novel organs, body plans, cell and tissue types, not to mention the wiring of nervous systems and brains. The concept is not proven. To say that currently known mechanisms are sufficient is a very large leap of faith. I wouldn't trust engineers who employ that sort of philosophy of design. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The blind evolutionary narrative is an extraordinary claim.mike1962
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Mike: Ah, I understand what you are saying, thanks:
: You can think whatever you want, but it wouldn’t fly in the real world of engineering. You see, in the real world, sloppy unproven thinking like that can cost lives. I have no reason to accept that what we know about micro-evolution would scale to the macro world of novel organs, body plans, cell types, and tissue types. Just because you can drive a car to L.A to New York, doesn’t mean you can drive it to London. There are extra mechanisms needed to surmount the problem of the Atlantic.
Two points: One is that we are not talking in terms of dimensional scale here, but over time. Nobody is saying that because a bacterium can, in one step, mutate to have antibiotic resistance, then so can a land-based artiodactyl mutate in one step to a whale. I'm sure you know this, I just want us to be clear what we mean by "scale" here. We are instead saying: if we can drive from LA to Las Vegas, then we can drive from LA to New York as long as we allow more time. Second is: fair point re the Atlantic. However, that's what I mean by the onus - essentially what you are postulating is there is some "Atlantic" that must surely get in the way between our land-based artiodactyl and the whale (well in that case it might BE the atlantic, I guess!). So what candidate barriers do you see as preventing the steady incremental adaptive evolution, and the intermittent divergence, of populations over time from accumulating large scale differences between the extant populations and their remote ancestors or cousins?
The onus is on evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that the known mechanisms of stochastic “blind” micro-evolution are adequate for the production of “macro” level biological features. As of yet, no sale.
Well, I'd certainly like to know what kind of barriers you envisage. Can you give an example? Of a transition you think is impossible, or at least, very unlikely?Elizabeth Liddle
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: However, I think the onus is on those who balk at “macro evolution” to explain why, when we observe both micro-evolution within a lineage, and speciation of populations into two lineages, why this process can’t continue to happen.
You can think whatever you want, but it wouldn't fly in the real world of engineering. You see, in the real world, sloppy unproven thinking like that can cost lives. I have no reason to accept that what we know about micro-evolution would scale to the macro world of novel organs, body plans, cell types, and tissue types. Just because you can drive a car to L.A to New York, doesn't mean you can drive it to London. There are extra mechanisms needed to surmount the problem of the Atlantic. The onus is on evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that the known mechanisms of stochastic "blind" micro-evolution are adequate for the production of "macro" level biological features. As of yet, no sale.mike1962
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Mike1962:
Elizabeth Liddle: Well, we can observe micro-evolution and speciation, and multiply
Too bad most evolutionary biologists are not engineers. If they were, they might understand why a lot of engineers are skeptical. I would never get a plane designed by someone like you Elizabeth.
Probably an excellent idea, Mike :) However, I think the onus is on those who balk at "macro evolution" to explain why, when we observe both micro-evolution within a lineage, and speciation of populations into two lineages, why this process can't continue to happen. What stops it, in your view? F/N (see, I'm getting the lingo here :)): I did in fact do a bit of structural engineering as part of my training in architecture. I've sized the odd beam fairly successfully, and designed the odd truss :) I don't think anything has fallen down yet.Elizabeth Liddle
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Joseph: well, let's not argue about terminology - the important thing is that I know what you mean, so thanks for clearing that up. Indeed genetic drift is an important factor in evolution.
But what is important is NS is a result- an after market assessment.
Yes indeed.
Then with sexual reproduction there isn’t any guarantee that any of the offspring will get the heritable beneficial trait.
Well, it depends on the number of offspring of course, but yes, a new mutation, even if potentially beneficial, is at its most vulnerable until a few members of the population have it. Then its future starts to become more secure. There are fancy equations in population genetics that describe these probability functions, as you are probably aware.
So one could out-reproduce the rest in one generation but the next generation could be altogether different.
Yes, there are important stochastic factors in selection. However, the larger the proportion of the population that has the new mutation, the more likely it is to go to fixation. So yes, the early stages are the "riskiest".
Fastest can also mean the first to the ambush- IOW it ain’t that black and white.
You are absolutely right. Again, this is why the probability of net beneficial mutation increases as the proportion of the population that bear it grows. But if it is very marginal (running away from bears isn't that much more common than running into them) then it may be stopped by drift effects anyway.
Ya see there are competing traits- better sight, stronger, better hearing-> and then there is just plain ole luck and cooperation.
Yup. The fitness landscape is both multidimensional and stochastic.
As for “random” perhaps you should read “Not By Chance” by Dr Lee Spetner.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have serious issues with the word "random" - it's used in lots of different ways, some of them deeply contradictory.
As for genes and genotype- genes influence traits and influence development. They do not determine what is going to develop.
Well, again, it's stochastic rather than deterministic. We are talking about changing probabilities here (biasing rather than determining what happens). And some genes are more deterministic than others. Relatively few phenotypic effects are determined by a single gene. Cool - we seem to agree on most of that :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
First natural selection is a result of three processes- (1)differential reproduction due to (2)heritable (3)random variation. Elizabeth:
Well, that would usually be lumped together as “Darwinian evolution” rather than “natural selection, which is the differential reproduction part” but, yes, that’s it, basically.
That is natural selection, period. Darwinian evolution is also OK with random genetic drift. But what is important is NS is a result- an after market assessment. Then with sexual reproduction there isn't any guarantee that any of the offspring will get the heritable beneficial trait. So one could out-reproduce the rest in one generation but the next generation could be altogether different. Elizabeth:
The differential selection part is obviously stochastic in one sense (there are factors other than heritable ones that affect your reproduction chances) but the heritable factors are what they are – if you can run faster you can run faster, and if that helps you catch prey/escape from predators, then it will help you survive to reproduce.
Fastest can also mean the first to the ambush- IOW it ain't that black and white. Ya see there are competing traits- better sight, stronger, better hearing-> and then there is just plain ole luck and cooperation. As for "random" perhaps you should read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner. As for genes and genotype- genes influence traits and influence development. They do not determine what is going to develop.Joseph
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: Well, we can observe micro-evolution and speciation, and multiply</blockquote? Too bad most evolutionary biologists are not engineers. If they were, they might understand why a lot of engineers are skeptical. I would never get a plane designed by someone like you Elizabeth.
mike1962
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Elizabeth:
OK, so your issue is not with selection, but with the processes that result in variance?
First natural selection is a result of three processes- (1)differential reproduction due to (2)heritable (3)random variation.
Well, that would usually be lumped together as "Darwinian evolution" rather than "natural selection, which is the differential reproduction part" but, yes, that's it, basically. Very neatly done :)
Next there isn’t any methodology which demonstrates the known evolutionary mechanisms are stochastic/ spontaneous, ie blind and undirected (unguided).
Well this is where parsing it out is important. The differential selection part is obviously stochastic in one sense (there are factors other than heritable ones that affect your reproduction chances) but the heritable factors are what they are - if you can run faster you can run faster, and if that helps you catch prey/escape from predators, then it will help you survive to reproduce. The interesting question concerns the mechanisms of variance production, as you say. We tend to call them "random" because they mostly appear orthogonal to survival (a mutation is at least as to be deleterious as beneficial, and, in fact, in a well-adapted population, will almost certainly be so. So it doesn't look as though whatever processes govern mutations have any particular end in view (ditto with GAs). However, what may well be the case is that mutation rates, and mutation types are well suited to successful adaptation. This would be interesting, and would either suggest Intelligent Design, or selection above the level of the individual (differential persistence of populations rather than differential reproduction of individuals).
And still no one knows if any amount of variation can take some populations of imperfect replicators and produce the diversity of living organisms. Can’t simulate it because no one knows what makes an organism what it is.
Well, we can observe micro-evolution and speciation, and multiply :) As for your second point, we do know quite a lot now about how genotypic variation produces phenotypic variation, but it's in its infancy still.Elizabeth Liddle
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows” (New Scientist, September 18, 1999, volume 163, page 2204).bornagain77
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
OK, so your issue is not with selection, but with the processes that result in variance?
First natural selection is a result of three processes- (1)differential reproduction due to (2)heritable (3)random variation. Next there isn't any methodology which demonstrates the known evolutionary mechanisms are stochastic/ spontaneous, ie blind and undirected (unguided). And still no one knows if any amount of variation can take some populations of imperfect replicators and produce the diversity of living organisms. Can't simulate it because no one knows what makes an organism what it is.Joseph
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
What I keep pointing out is that until you get to the root the tree of life has no root.
Yes it does, we just don't understand what it is yet - chemistry and physics or intentional agent. We can study the tree and understand how it works. We can also try and discover what the seed was like. They are two related but separate lines of enquiry - the tree does not change when we discover the seed that produced it.
And until you can empirically warrant your claims what you have is a priori materialist metaphysics force-fitted on science
What we have are questions that need answers. Inserting 'intentional agent' into the gaps you perceive does not answer the question. It may yet turn out to be the right answer, but we do not have a complete understanding of the entire system yet so simply stepping back and proclaiming that you can see a gap, and therefore the only way it can be filled is by intentional agents is bad science. The scientific approach is to say - we don't know, lets try and find out. Not, we don't know, therefore some unknown intentional agent did it.DrBot
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
PS: What I keep pointing out is that until you get to the root the tree of life has no root. Similarly, until you can SHOW branching at body-plan level, incrementally, you have no branches. What you have is a forest of small bushes in effect. And until you can empirically warrant your claims what you have is a priori materialist metaphysics force-fitted on science, not real science free of censorship; exactly what Newton warned against in 1704 in Opticks, Query 31.kairosfocus
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 10

Leave a Reply