RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Avocationist, taking some advice...seperate thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,05:23   

Avocationist

Hume argued that there is no such thing as a miracle.  Anything that is observed enough times becomes a natural fact.  Therefore, there is nothing that can ever be proven that will not be natural.  Its just an interesting tangent you seem to be working off of in your arguments.

You mentioned Newton.  I hate when people reference Newton to explain a symbiotic existence of religion and science.  
There are two flaws with this comparison.
1.  Newton was NOT a fundamentalist....he did not believe much of the bible....and when he applied his scientific scrutiny to the bible....he decided that Jesus was not divine.
2.  Newton never used religion to explain the world.  You might say that he attempted to use the bible during his exploration of alchemy....but he completely failed at alchemy.  So, in other words, when he attempted to use religious and scientific knowledge together....he wound up in a basement practicing alchemy.  When he was simply observing the natual world....he created calculus.


BTW...I am a Deist....and my religious beliefs have no bearing on my scientific ones.  If science claimed to be the "supreme" answer...then I might have conflict....but Science only claims to be the most appropriate answer based on the data that we currently have in our possesion to explain the natural world.


The only work that has been done to "prove" ID is statistics.  Behe theorized that life was too complex to have arisen by chance....which is a completely unsustainable claim.  Dembski later analyzed the probability of such a chance.  The problem with Dembski's probabilities are well-cited...but let me point out the fundamental flaw.  HUBRIS...as you so eloquently stated earlier, except in this case...it is the hubris of the statistician.  

Lets have a little excercise.  Flip a coin..was it heads or tails?  Let's pretend it was heads.  What are the odds that you would get heads? 1:2
You now have heads....what are the odds that you have heads? 1:1

It is always assumed that the current course of evolution is the only appropriate one.  Of course the odds are very rare that we would wind up in our current state.....but only if you compare the current state to everything else.  There were, of course, many different oppurtunities to change the current state.  They might have all been equally successful, they are simply ignored because they are impossible to calculate.

Also, if the probability of our existence seems to rare for you...then maybe you are right.  Perhaps we did win the grand lottery of the universe....since we have yet to meet any other lucky contestants.....perhaps we are simply a fluke.

Hubris encourages us to believe that our existence is the correct one.  Hubris is also responsible for "the meaning of life".  Life doesnt require meaning...it could be accidental.  Most dont want to accept that, but their only reason is their belief in their own self-importance.

You also missed the point of the rock...and the question of how or who?

Science would readily accept that a person caused the rock to pour out water.  However, science would not care who had struck the rock.

It shouldnt matter.  Moses, his brother, Abraham, or Jeff; they all could have done it.  It doesnt help our understanding of the phenomenon to attribute it to any particular person.  After science decided that striking the rock had caused water to pour out....they would still explore the nature and source of that water.  They would also explore how striking the rock had caused water.

You either misunderstood, or were trying to skirt the issue.  ID would then sit back and say.."we know who struck the rock, but we cannot tell you....you may not like Him."  IT shouldnt matter....they still need to tell us how the rock is producing water.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,07:16   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb 6 2006,17<!--emo&:0)
Yeah, I'm new here and I do not want to be annoying. Problem is the topic comes up all the time. I think its unavoidable because the core of this whole debate is about whether we live in a purely material universe or not. There's no way really to discuss ID or evolution as understood by many of its most famous proponents without taking atheism/theism into account.

My biggest interest is more philosophical, about the nature of reality itself, conscousness, and what human beings are doing with themselves. I see that it is very hard for most people to approach truth objectively because their emotions color their motives.

To me it appears that there is a blockage in ability to communicate because for many on the 'scientific' side religion is repugnant to them. I find good reasons for that.
In my opinion, Christianity is stuck in the dark ages, and is only beginning to think about moving out. On the other hand, many in the scientific community, reacting to that primitiveness, are in a state of suspended animation in their ability to find more useful ways to think about reality.

That's what I'm getting at. With evolution, you don't need to talk about atheism vs. theism, but with ID you do? ID is dependent on having some sort of supernatural being (defined as such, since this being is responsible for "designing" the features of the universe and only the "supernatural" could be the designer of the natural.) Since it is dependent on that supernatural entity, it is inherently in the region of religion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, you try to argue from personal incredulity, but what is more probable, the process called evolution that has multitudes of evidence, or the undefined process called ID that posits an entity that science can not provide any evidence for, by the own definition of the entity? That's the thing. God can not be proven or disproven by science, and there is no evidence that can point to god since all evidence simultaneously points to god and not god all at once.

Edit:  It seems that you think evolution must discuss religion, but that is only correct in cases where the religion makes empirical claims that are open to falsification by scientific inquiry.  Of course, in those cases it would not just be evolution, but physics and many other fields.  So, I ask you what is it about evolution that is more atheistic than any other field of science?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,08:12   

Quote
So, I ask you what is it about evolution that is more atheistic than any other field of science?

This is just another case of kicking someone in the shins, and complaining that they hurt your toe!

The relevance of religion to *anything* is entirely a function of the doctrine that religion espouses. If some religion were to teach the nonexistence of rabbits, then rabbits would become religious objects in the context of that religion. Indeed, rabbits would become infidels and heretics, and the religion may organize fanatical rabbit-hunts to exterminate what they claim doesn't exist in the first place. What could possibly be more religious than that?

Doctrine trumps evidence every time.

  
Sheikh Mahandi



Posts: 47
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,08:19   

Quote
It seems that you think evolution must discuss religion, but that is only correct in cases where the religion makes empirical claims that are open to falsification by scientific inquiry.  Of course, in those cases it would not just be evolution, but physics and many other fields.  So, I ask you what is it about evolution that is more atheistic than any other field of science?


Recent evidence shows that ICR at least is treating evolution and astronomy / cosmology as equally atheistic and inimical to their world view -
Bad Astronomy - A creationist take on comets

--------------
"Love is in the air, everywhere I look around,.....Love is in the air, every sight and every sound,......"

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,10:42   

Quote
Fine questions. A purely material universe means the  universe as understood by the philosophy of materialism; in which matter is understood in its commonest sense as "just stuff" eternally existing and without any needed component of mind or consciousness or God.

But the problem here is partly one of philosophy.  It is possible to imagine things which have no physical existence, but in order to see if they do or not, you need to do science.  As for needing a component of God in matter, there are a few religions and philosophies that claim that, the problem comes in showing it to be the case.  

Quote

As to material and non-material I have wondered this same question. Although the spiritual has been traditionally spoken of as nonmaterial, I am unable to understand how something can exist and not be in any way material and how it can interact with matter. But I do not know physics and I don't even understand the expression "massless particle." Anyway, I strongly consider that what has been called non-material simply means an ultrafine level of materiality and the innermost dimensions. So it could be a smooth continuum. On the other hand, the Existence-Principle (God) must be fundamentally existent and therefore invulnerable, which matter by definition is vulnerable.

(Bolded text by me) With regards to the bolded section- that is precisely our point.  Nobody else can understand how something that has no material/ physical exitence can interact with matter.  

What makes you think that
1) God is the existence principle?
2) and invulnerable?

Quite a lot of ancient beliefs have vulnerable gods, the Greeks being the most obvious example.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,10:52   

Does nobody find it odd, that massless and timeless particles can give rise to life on Earth; Yet a massless and timeless entity couldn't?

I am not claiming my statement as scientific BTW. But the world-views do look a bit similar.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:11   

I'm guessing that you are talking about photons here.  It's really only a problem conceptually, because as a human we have problems concieving of massless and timeless things.  Our bias doesn't affect the reality of those particles though.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:21   

Nothing's "timeless" exactly. A photon is the best example of a massless particle. Why "massless"?

Per relativity, as the velocity of an object approaches c, the mass approaches infinity. So nothing with mass can have a velocity equal to or greater than c. Photons, lacking mass, "automatically" travel at c. Thus, "the speed of light."

The quantum and relatavistic views of the universe are indeed weird to the untutored human imagination. But it's important, I think, per S. Elliot's question, to draw a line between the difficulty of describing "ultimate reality" in ordinary language, and the essentially arbitrarily assigned "spooky" qualities of an eternal, omnipotent entity.

On one hand, you have elegant congruence between mathematical abstractions and observed phenomena. On the other you have made-up "mysteries" that need not be congruent with any observation.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:26   

Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 07 2006,17:11)
I'm guessing that you are talking about photons here. It's really only a problem conceptually, because as a human we have problems concieving of massless and timeless things. Our bias doesn't affect the reality of those particles though.

Yes I was.

Photons=zero mass and are not subject to time. Yet they are the reason why Earth and Evolution are not subject to SLOT.

Do you not see any similarity in the claims here?

One side says a massless timeless entity caused life. The other side says massless and timeless particles did it.
???

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:29   

Actually, C.J., photons are quite timeless.  As they are traveling at the speed of light they experience infinite time dilation.  So, for them, their creation, reflections, refractions, and eventual absorption happen instantaneously.

Stephen, the difference is that photons can be measured.  And the theory of their existence makes testable predictions.  Don't equivocate just because there are a couple of similarities between God and photons.  It really is a supid argument.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:33   

Methinks that's confusing two different meanings of the term "timeless". But I've never heard of the "entity" being called massless before; not sure what that means.

Henry

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:40   

OK. I hadn't quite thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I was making "timeless" synonymous with "eternal." In any case, my main point stands, which is directed at Stephen, and is: "massless" and "timeless" are necessarily fuzzy terms in physics, because they are approximations to mathematical descriptions using ordinary language.
Applied to God, they're just window dressing. It isn't contradictory, after all, to say God masses as much as the Milky Way, rests every seven days, and is going to die next Wednesday. Who can tell me different? (At least, before next Thursday?)

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:44   

Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 07 2006,17:29)
Actually, C.J., photons are quite timeless. As they are traveling at the speed of light they experience infinite time dilation. So, for them, their creation, reflections, refractions, and eventual absorption happen instantaneously.

Stephen, the difference is that photons can be measured. And the theory of their existence makes testable predictions. Don't equivocate just because there are a couple of similarities between God and photons. It really is a supid argument.

Yes it does.

Not quite my point though.
I agree scientifically you are far more right.
I was just comparing what some people call magic, with how similar some natural properties appear to that.

Again. My point was not scientific. Just pointing out world-views.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:46   

Quote
One side says a massless timeless entity caused life. The other side says massless and timeless particles did it.
And one side uses evidence, while the other uses wishful thinking. Like the relationship between a pre-frontal lobotomy, and a free bottle in front of me. Uncanny, just uncanny.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:47   

Okay, so I'm moving everything here.

Dear Innoculated Mind, I hope you haven't innoculated it against anything good, like new information.

Quote
But contrary to what they say, you can indeed infer about the nature of the designer from the design.
No, you really can't. You can infer that it was capable of design, not much else. Check out Lloyd Pye, a fringe guy who is sure all life has been steadily seeded here by other beings in the universe and he has lots of interesting data about it. He thinks both evolutionists and creationists have their heads in the sand.

I think the exercise in separating the design inference from the religious dogma is a good one for the Christians, because it is such a good thing for people to do, and they won't do it unless forced, which is to say, the exercise of really asking themselves, "what do I know for sure?"
*******************
Renier,

I did not say 'there is a God'. I said that IF I had made that assumption, others would follow.

The assertion that there is no evidence for God doesn't interest me. First, not all scientists come to that conclusion. It is far more prevalent in biology, where Darwinist materialism holds sway. Some physicists believe they have found evidence of nonlocal consciousness. I don't know the percentages, but atheism is far smaller among physicists than biologists.
Second, it is a matter of perception. God is the subtle aspect of reality, not the gross.
I didn't read much of that very long insertion because I just couldn't see that it had much relevance to my own views. Do you know why I am here? I'm here because I was about to be banned for "gratuitious religion bashing."
*************************
Puck,

Yeah, about Hume, I think that rarity is a major factor in deciding an event is supernatural. In fact, we calmly accept  the every day things which we also can't explain, just because we see them more often.

There are no flaws with my Newton comparison because you assumed I thought the Bible or Christian dogma had anything vital to do with his basic reverence for God. Let's begin by clarifying the difference between religion and spirituality. There is a whole world of spirituality as well as nonChristian religions out there. Yet down here in these Darwinian-creationist dungeons we get only a steady diet of fundamentalist understanding to work off of. Religions have names. I have no particular religion and find faith of little worth.
I'm thrilled to find out Newton was a free thinker. He failed at alchemy, of course, as most alchemists do. It takes some very, very unusual thinking to comprehend alchemy.

Quote
BTW...I am a Deist....and my religious beliefs have no bearing on my scientific ones.

What religious beliefs can a deist have?

I do not think you have understood the complex specified information argument. The coin toss answer I've seen before as well. Look, every moment of your day and every item within it is unique and unrepeatable. So the chances of it occuring in just this way if predicted beforehand would be vanishingly small. The solutions we see in biology may not be the only possible ones, but they are extremely unlikely in comparison to the vast search space of random possible connections.

Quote
Hubris is also responsible for "the meaning of life".  Life doesnt require meaning...it could be accidental.
I don't think it's hubris. Seeking the meaning of life is a very sane response to the situation we find ourselves in. There are many profound and important meanings to life, but there is not one overriding one. That is because existence itself is the most profound aspect of reality, and any and all explanations are therefore lower than it, derivative from it. It is not because life might be accidental that it 'lacks inherent meaning.' It lacks inherent meaning because life itself is the most inherent thing.

It may be that I missed the point of the rock. I thought I gave good answers. You say it doesn't matter who struck the rock. But we are talking about a 'miracle' situation, and last I checked, most people can't perform miracles. So in this case, we would need to definitely study why one particular person could do it. This would be part of finding out how it occurred. What I'm trying to say about miracles is that if they occur, they are within the laws of nature, even if they are not within our current abilities to reproduce ourselves. Imagine a primitive person, faced with a pile of sand and metal shavings. If you waved a magnet over it and separated out the metal, he might find it magical. In the same way, if there is a God who does anything (I'm not sure yours does) then s/he has done things within the laws of nature, utilizing knowledge of nature we don't currently possess. Someone said to me that the resurrection was a supernatural event. But I answered that if Jesus would be so cooperative as to die for us and resurrect himself every morning at 9 o'clock, and allow teams of scientists to study the event, we would find out a lot about how it occurs.

Quote
.They still need to tell us how the rock is producing water.
Amen.
************************
GCT,

Quote
With evolution, you don't need to talk about atheism vs. theism, but with ID you do?


No, I think it comes up with all of them. Darwinist evolution from the beginning was an attempt to get away from superstition and unexamined a priori acceptance of revealed scripture, yes, but it was also an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether, and the repugnance of the Christian God was a major emotional motivation. So from the beginning this was an attempt to explore the viability of a materialist worldview.

Quote
ID is dependent on having some sort of supernatural being  (defined as such, since this being is responsible for "designing" the features of the universe and only the "supernatural" could be the designer of the natural.)
Well, the argument that we must ultimately rest upon a cause of nature I agree with, but ID itself needn't go that far.  The point of ID is that if the evidence points to a designer, we can't exclude it because we don't want it to be true.

And if there is a supernatural being who caused nature then we are all dependent upon it, and if that is the case there are only two positions for the sentient being to take: awareness of it or unawareness of it.

Quote
Since it is dependent on that supernatural entity, it is inherently in the region of religion.
Region of the spiritual.
You know what I like about this whole big drama? In which the scientists have wiped the slate clean in one fell swoop and said "Okay, let's start with what we know is true and work from there."
It's a beautiful thing to do. It was time to clean house. Now the physicists are getting more and more serious about consciousness. The God we end up with will not be the one we left behind. And thank God for that.

Quote
Also, you try to argue from personal incredulity, but what is more probable, the process called evolution that has multitudes of evidence, or the undefined process called ID that posits an entity that science can not provide any evidence for, by the own definition of the entity?


Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail. It's all about Reality with a capital R and reality is all about detail.  What's more, I see no possibility of a universe without God. None at all.

Quote
and there is no evidence that can point to god since all evidence simultaneously points to god and not god all at once.
In my opinion that is a clue about the immanence of God - that God is part of everything.

About the branches of science - Yes, as I mentioned above, evolution tends to be more atheistic in that they have had from the beginning prominent proponents who have made this almost part of the platform. I believe the Cornell president said something about this, and someone else said that those who think evolution is compatible with religion have not understood evolution and so forth. But as I also answered, science itself is not a being with whom I can find fault. ID is simply against the tendency to refuse admittance to and to ridicule any but a materialist interpretation of evidence. This has nothing to do with the scientific method.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:49   

Quote (Flint @ Feb. 07 2006,17:46)
Quote
One side says a massless timeless entity caused life. The other side says massless and timeless particles did it.
And one side uses evidence, while the other uses wishful thinking. Like the relationship between a pre-frontal lobotomy, and a free bottle in front of me. Uncanny, just uncanny.

LOL. Agreed

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,11:54   

avocationist:

Quote
Darwinist evolution from the beginning was an attempt to get away from superstition and unexamined a priori acceptance of revealed scripture, yes, but it was also an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether, and the repugnance of the Christian God was a major emotional motivation.


Arrant nonsense, totally wrongheaded. Darwin attempted to *explain evidence*. He wasn't motivated by any imaginary repugnance or attempt to replace scripture, he was motivated by finding an explanation for what he observed. YOU are the one projecting gods where they don't belong and have no business.

This is an error probably everyone here is quite thorougly sick of -- that people who respect evidence are somehow "deliberately rejecting god", pure projection on the part of the godballs. Aren't you going to pray for us now?

Now, you could probably make a good case that the reason Darwin was able to produce something new, was because religious blinders had prevented otherwise intelligent people from noticing the obvious for *centuries*. Religion does that to people.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,12:11   

This is the howler of the day:

Avocationist said:
Quote
IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail.


Dembski doesn't agree, I'm afraid:
Quote
As for your example, Im not going to take the bait. Youre asking me to play a game: Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position. ID is not a mechanistic theory, and its not IDs task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.


--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,12:35   

Quote
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail. It's all about Reality with a capital R and reality is all about detail.  What's more, I see no possibility of a universe without God. None at all.


This has got to be a joke. Do you know how many papers have been published on evolutionary biology in the past hundred years? Even if you ignored all of those, I doubt you would be able to keep up with the new ones being published every week.

As for ID "details". Well, I guess if you sit around and wait for a few months you might get lucky and find a couple of populist ID books have been published for you to read.

You obviously do not even begin to comprehend the overwhelming advantage evolution has over ID when it comes to "details". Perhaps if you imagine a tiny ID ant standing next to the evolutionary elephant you will begin to understand the difference in scale.

Simply because the ID ant has managed to acquire a DI megaphone and stir things up a bit doesn't even begin to overcome the true disparity.

Why do you think the DI invests 99% of it's considerable income in politics and publicity? They can't even find anybody who will do any ID research (whatever that is). Just ask the Templeton Foundation.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2006,23:57   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 07 2006,17:47)
I have no particular religion and find faith of little worth.
I'm thrilled to find out Newton was a free thinker. He failed at alchemy, of course, as most alchemists do. It takes some very, very unusual thinking to comprehend alchemy.

HHmm, two questions again.
I'm still confused about what you make of spirituality and religion.  Is it religion if it has a particular deity as a focus, or is it spirituality if there is no focus?  

Also, alchemy does take some very unusual thinking to comprehend.  But which bit of alchemy are you talking about?  Alchemy has clearly changed somewhat over the centuries, and the modern variety is nothing more than a magical movement.  (with all that that implies in terms of changing of outlook and reliance upon "spirituality")

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,02:55   

Quote
What I'm trying to say about miracles is that if they occur, they are within the laws of nature, even if they are not within our current abilities to reproduce ourselves.
I couldn't have put it better myself

Quote
but it was also an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether
Since most antievolutionists seem to think we believe Darwin is still the ultimate authority on evolution, it is worth noting that he believed that god was the ultimate cause who created life, after which the process of evolution began.

Quote
The point of ID is that if the evidence points to a designer, we can't exclude it because we don't want it to be true.
This point seems to be lost under all the philosophical arguments about god and materialism: The evidence does not point to a designer. There are many arguments about whether evidence of design requires evidence of a designer, whether it violates the first ammendment etc, but they are currently irrelevant because their is no evidence of intelligent design in biological systems.

I know it cant be helped but it does sadden me that we have to resort to philosophical and political arguments, surely there must be laws which make it illegal to decieve children in schools.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,03:03   

Quote
What I'm trying to say about miracles is that if they occur, they are within the laws of nature


Then it is not a miracle...

Quote
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail.


I am gnashing my teeth not to insult you, after you made the above statement. I cannot for the life of me consider this statement to come from an honest person. Am I missing something? What detail does ID have? You don't read science journals, do you?

I think I see what this all about. You need a designer to be there. You want science to confirm this. Well, science does not and wil not. What now? Do you think raping science with pseudo-science is the honourable thing to do? Behe does. Oh, and btw, you can/may be spiritual, without adulterating science. Just think about defending ID. What is it you are really defending? ID has been proven to be a clown suit for creationism. It has been proven to be nothing else than a scheme of fundies to try and force their politics and there hidden agenda (wedge document) on people like you, and us, and our children. For God's sake man, have your precious designer if you need him so, but leave science out of it, because it is not science.

As for physics, it also does not deal with ID. People have religions and are spiritual, not science. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. And stop reading all the rubbish that the ID people are spouting. Go to www.talkorigins.org and do your homework.

Maybe this Inteligent Designer you are seeking is really nothing else but Evolution. But hey, join the fundie crowd in getting their religion recognised as science. You sit on that side of the fence, and I will be on this side, doing what I can to defend science and a future for my children.

Go over to UD and see what type of people you are siding with. They cannot even tolerate their own, let alone people with different views. Their own supporters gets banned for asking questions, for stating religious conviction or just for disagreeing with them. Christians within that faction are fighting for power. But hey, you are free to choose your own friends. I suppose you can swallow their propaganda if you wish, but don't be suprised if the VAST majority of scientific community stands up against them, as is currently happening. Ever wonder why?

One can be spiritual without being dishonest, or stupid, or fundie.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,04:18   

Quote
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail.
No need for me to repeat everything Renier wrote. But be aware that this is the kind of statement that we in the science-education business find just exasperating.

Quick sum-up: in the real, practicing, professional scientific literature, there is no evidence for anything other than what you seem to mean by the not-very-useful term, "Darwinism". (Please stop using that word without some meaningful definition).

IDists are "into detail" in the sense that they're always on the lookout for arcane tidbits they can cite in order to appear erudite, without fear that their primary audience (the scientifically illiterate, eager to Believe) will be able to see through the fog. But notice, when it comes to "detail" that counts - you know, mechanisms, testable hypotheses - the IDists (I should say "anti-evolutionists", as they appear to be busily "rebranding" themselves) come up empty-handed.

Bottom line: "garbage in, garbage out". You get your information exclusively from demagogues selling books and promoting their social/political agenda, you will be "satisfied" with their version of reality. The day anti-evolutionism has a significant representation in the professional scientific literature is the day their claims are worth the time it takes to read them.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,05:00   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 07 2006,17:47)
I do not think you have understood the complex specified information argument. The coin toss answer I've seen before as well. Look, every moment of your day and every item within it is unique and unrepeatable. So the chances of it occuring in just this way if predicted beforehand would be vanishingly small. The solutions we see in biology may not be the only possible ones, but they are extremely unlikely in comparison to the vast search space of random possible connections.

First, I want to say something about this. You are making a mistake here. When a mutation occurs, it doesn't really have the full range of all random possibilities. A single mutation has a limited range of sample space. There was already a discussion on this not too long ago. Think of it like this. If a line represents all the possible outcomes of an organism, then a single organism sits somewhere on the line. A new mutation is only capable of shifting that organism's spot on the line by a minute amount.
Quote
No, I think it comes up with all of them. Darwinist evolution from the beginning was an attempt to get away from superstition and unexamined a priori acceptance of revealed scripture, yes, but it was also an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether, and the repugnance of the Christian God was a major emotional motivation. So from the beginning this was an attempt to explore the viability of a materialist worldview.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but I fail to see how "Darwinist evolution...was an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether, and the repugnance of the Christian God was a major emotional motivation." Are you suggesting that Darwin was somehow biased against the Christian god? It's true that he had questions about his faith, but those manifested themselves after the publication of Origin and were the direct result of the death of one of his loved ones. Nice try, but no such luck.

Quote
Well, the argument that we must ultimately rest upon a cause of nature I agree with, but ID itself needn't go that far. The point of ID is that if the evidence points to a designer, we can't exclude it because we don't want it to be true.

Again, trying to have your cake and eat it too. If ID is predicated on a cause of nature, then ID necessarily must show that that cause of nature exists, which is wholly impossible through science.
Quote
And if there is a supernatural being who caused nature then we are all dependent upon it, and if that is the case there are only two positions for the sentient being to take: awareness of it or unawareness of it.

But I fail to see how you will show this without engaging in circular logic. There is no evidence for god or ID, unless you assume that god exists, but that would be fallacious.
Quote
Region of the spiritual.
You know what I like about this whole big drama? In which the scientists have wiped the slate clean in one fell swoop and said "Okay, let's start with what we know is true and work from there."
It's a beautiful thing to do. It was time to clean house. Now the physicists are getting more and more serious about consciousness. The God we end up with will not be the one we left behind. And thank God for that.

Once again, how does one scientifically test for god? Besides, spiritual or religious realm (really they are the same) either one is outside of science.
Quote
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail. It's all about Reality with a capital R and reality is all about detail. What's more, I see no possibility of a universe without God. None at all.

First of all, as others have pointed out, there are about 150 years of peer-reviewed articles with evidence for evolution. Second, IDists being "into detail" is simply not true as also pointed out to you. Third, you are having cake eating problems once again in that you support ID because you see "no possibility of a universe without God" yet you want to claim that it is completely scientific.
Quote
In my opinion that is a clue about the immanence of God - that God is part of everything.

God is part of everything and also part of nothing all at the same time. Everything is both evidence for and evidence against god all at the same time. Can you cite one thing, just one that is strictly evidence for god that does not rely on the a priori assumption of god's existence?
Quote
About the branches of science - Yes, as I mentioned above, evolution tends to be more atheistic in that they have had from the beginning prominent proponents who have made this almost part of the platform. I believe the Cornell president said something about this, and someone else said that those who think evolution is compatible with religion have not understood evolution and so forth. But as I also answered, science itself is not a being with whom I can find fault. ID is simply against the tendency to refuse admittance to and to ridicule any but a materialist interpretation of evidence. This has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Evolution is not compatible with some religions, that is true. Those religions are ones that hold that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 literal days. Of course, physics is not compatible with those religions either? Why, because those religions are making non-spiritual, empirical claims that are falsified. Evolution and all science is based solely on the empirical. This does not equate to atheistic. ID, however, is not solely based on the empirical, because it is predicated on finding the supernatural. The ID movement is not scientific, it is a religio-political movement centered on combatting atheism. Their insistence on creating straw-man definitions of evolution that equate it to atheism speak to this. You are even making the mistake of equating philosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,06:07   

About the massless particle - can someone explain what it means to be massless - in what way can it have properties and it what way does it exist, is it material, does massless perhaps mean it is unaffected by gravity?

Flint said:

Quote
Arrant nonsense, totally wrongheaded. Darwin attempted to *explain evidence*. ...This is an error probably everyone here is quite thorougly sick of -- that people who respect evidence are somehow "deliberately rejecting god", pure projection on the part of the godballs. Aren't you going to pray for us now?

Well now, you tell me. Are you saying that centuries of witch burning and the inquisition and the St. Bartholomew's day massacre, and the uncounted sermons about how the saved will revel in the sufferings of the damned, even when those damned are their wives and children - that this really has had no major psychic effect upon the development of enlightenment thought? And why do you suppose that Darwin called Chrstianity a "damnable doctrine" that he could not understand why anyone would want to be true? And by this, I am not at all implying that there was anything illegitimate in seeking a way out of that morass.
****************
CJ-

Quote
As for your example, Im not going to take the bait. Youre asking me to play a game: Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position. ID is not a mechanistic theory, and its not IDs task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

Interesting quote. I'd say he is probably leaving open the degree to which we will ever discover the methods of the designer. Nonetheless, in my readings, the arguments of ID  are pretty consistent in finding Darwinism inadequate due to increasing understanding of detail. That is the thrust of Black Box, and the flagellum argument, and the Berlinski fish eyes critique and even the Meyer paper.
I note that Dembski used the words 'pathetic level of detail.' So it does not appear he is impressed by what's being offered.

Tacitus,
Quote
Perhaps if you imagine a tiny ID ant standing next to the evolutionary elephant you will begin to understand the difference in scale.

I understand that there are mounds of data.

Guthrie,
Quote

HHmm, two questions again.
I'm still confused about what you make of spirituality and religion.  Is it religion if it has a particular deity as a focus, or is it spirituality if there is no focus?
I'd say its religion if it has a name and some sort of system. I do look into the thought systems of various religions and find merit in a lot of it, I just don't have the need to subscribe to or follow any one of them.

Quote
Also, alchemy does take some very unusual thinking to comprehend.  But which bit of alchemy are you talking about?  Alchemy has clearly changed somewhat over the centuries, and the modern variety is nothing more than a magical movement.  (with all that that implies in terms of changing of outlook and reliance upon "spirituality")
Alchemy is a little side interest of mine. By magic are you referring to spiritual alchemy? Mostly, I'm interested in the old-fashioned kind. But spiritual alchemy is interesting, too. In my opinion, the whole Christian story is an alchemical allegory. And a beautiful one.

  
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,06:08   

What it all boils down to is evidence.  

Avocationist keeps banging on about ID explaining the 'facts' and the 'details' being with ID.  

Well, what facts?  What details?  I have never seen any positive evidence for ID.  All I've seen from the ID community is negative arguments against evolution, which - even if true (and they're not) - would not prove design.  

So where is the positive evidence?

The only thing that comes close to a positive argument is that 'it sure looks designed to me'.  Well, it looks designed to me as well.  But then, from my perspective the sun moves through the sky every day.  And from my perspective the continents are in no way moving around.  

What's wrong with my perspective?  It's a human one, that's what is wrong with it.  Human's have an inherent (dare I say evolved? ;) ) difficulty in imagining things beyond the range of their sight, and things that take longer to happen than their lifespans.  That's why we need to exercise our imaginations.  

Are we ever going to see the earth revolving round the sun?  This one's a bit more possible.  Technically speaking I could build a space ship, park it somewhere at right angles to the earths orbit and sit there for a year, watching it happening.    

We can take the geologicial evidence and we can imagine the continents moving around.  Are we ever going to actually see it happening?  No way.  Not unless we crack the 70ish year life span we currently have.  Do we need an intelligent designer theory to show that continents can't move by themselves?  Not so far.  

Humans have major difficulties dealing with geological time spans.  I have major problems trying to imagine what a million years would be like.  If I live until 70 it will seem to me to be one #### of a long subjective time - twice as long as I've been around so far.  I'd have to live 14000 times longer than that to get anywhere near a million.  14000 long life spans.  And that's just a million years.  Don't get me started on a billion years.  

Evolution may be slow, and random mutation may appear to give only tiny weeny changes one at time, but when you're talking about bacteria that reproduce once every 20 minutes you're talking about incredibly vast populations of fast breeding organisms where small mutations will be happening literally every single second world wide - every second of every hour of every day, every year, for billions of years!

Now tell me again how improbable evolution is...

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,06:35   

Quote

avocationist



Posts: 15
Joined: Feb. 2006
Posted: Feb. 08 2006,12:07

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the massless particle - can someone explain what it means to be massless - in what way can it have properties and it what way does it exist, is it material, does massless perhaps mean it is unaffected by gravity?


Massless particles are things such as electrons and photons.
An electron has a property. It is it's electric charge.
Massless particles can have other properties such as spin.

They are affected by gravity. Otherwise blackholes would not exist. Also the theory of relativity would be wrong and have failed the test where a stars position seems to alter if it's light passes close to the Sun on a total eclipse (that is not quite right, but I am having trouble thinking of a clearer explanation).

Particles that travel at the speed of light are considered massless. They are also unafected by time.

If you was traveling through space at the speed of light, you would not be travelling through time. You would also have infinite mass and require an infinite amount of energy to get to that velocity.

BTW. A photon is a particle of light (being massless also makes it a light particle :D  ).

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,07:26   

Stephen Elliot,

Electrons are not massless at all.  They weigh 9 x 10^-31 kg.

Every particle, though, has a mass.  But some do not have a "rest mass".  Let me explain.  Photons have energy (planck's constant times the frequency), and E=mc^2, and because of that all forms of energy react with gravity.  Most particles that we know of (protons, electrons, neutrons) have a mass even when they are not moving, we call this a "rest mass" for obvious reasons.  Because E and m are related by a simple formula, physicists typically stick to the energy units.  Most physicists will say that the mass of an electron is .5 MeV (a unit of energy).    

You're right that only massless particles travel at the speed of light.  In fact, they are required to.  The only ones I can think of right now are photons (light waves) and gravitons (gravity waves). But, I'm sure I'm not thinking of all of them.

-Dan

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,08:20   

Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 08 2006,13:26)
Stephen Elliot,

Electrons are not massless at all. They weigh 9 x 10^-31 kg.

Every particle, though, has a mass. But some do not have a "rest mass". Let me explain. Photons have energy (planck's constant times the frequency), and E=mc^2, and because of that all forms of energy react with gravity. Most particles that we know of (protons, electrons, neutrons) have a mass even when they are not moving, we call this a "rest mass" for obvious reasons. Because E and m are related by a simple formula, physicists typically stick to the energy units. Most physicists will say that the mass of an electron is .5 MeV (a unit of energy).

You're right that only massless particles travel at the speed of light. In fact, they are required to. The only ones I can think of right now are photons (light waves) and gravitons (gravity waves). But, I'm sure I'm not thinking of all of them.

-Dan

WOW! That's me told.

Seriously though, are you saying Electrons do not travel at light speed?I thought they did, and that implicated zero mass.

I do not mind being wrong (which is just as well). But could you give a link or two?         Please.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,08:37   

Because you guys can't agree on what a massless particle is, there must be a controversy.  I say we teach the controversy.  Furthermore, it has caused me to doubt massless particle theory (it is just a theory afterall).  In fact, there's not much proof for it and I just can't see how it could be possible.  I don't know of any flashlights that become massless when you turn them on.

Plus, masslessness is a naturalistic concept and necessarily atheist, so I must reject it in favor of the Flashlight Designer theory, which is far superior to your baseless, materialist suppositions.  FDT can scientifically tell you that god created the flashlight which is so much more detailed than your pathetic little massless particle nonsense.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,08:51   

If flashlights were created by god, oops, I mean, a Designer, why do we have to change their batteries (and bulbs) every now and then? ;)

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,08:57   

Another point on particle masses - for the "massless" particles, there's not a lower limit on the amount of energy that kind of particle can possess. The regular particles though (electron, neutrino, quark) have a minumum amount of energy that they can't go below (referred to as their "rest mass"). (Also, apparently it's this possession of rest mass that drags their speed down below that of light. Or something like that.)

Henry

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,08:59   

Stephen Elliot,

Wikipedia is always a great place to start.  I think you were confused by the loose language that people use.  Free electrons typically move quite close to the speed of light.  And compared to our snails pace, they effectively do.  But in reality, they don't, just really close.  It's completely understandable that you got the wrong idea, but I thought I'd nip it in the bud before others get confused.

And after re-reading my last post I realize that I may have confused more people.  I used loose language and appeared to contradict myself.  If you need me to re-explain, let me know.

GCT,

I tried to come with something witty to say, but I cannot compete.  Bravo!

-Dan

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,09:05   

Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 08 2006,14:59)
GCT,

I cannot compete.

-Dan

Forever more, I shall keep this quote and use it as evidence that even materialists doubt that massless particleism is true. Want to join the list of scientific type people that reject massless particleism? It's the fastest growing list of dissent from science in the country. It grew by infinity percent today when I signed it.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,09:18   

Quote
And why do you suppose that Darwin called Chrstianity a "damnable doctrine"
I've never run across Darwin's opinions on Christianity. Just out of curiosity, what was the context of this remark? I thought that, in his public work, Darwin went out of his way not to unnecessarily antagonize the pious.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,09:30   

Cogzoid,
Is that mass not dangerously close to a plank measurement; Therefore fairly meaningless?

I am not sure. But from electronics education, we are taught that electron speed is=light speed.

There are things such as atmosphere and medium that efectively slow them. But that is also true of photons.

I am working from memory here, so could very well be wrong. But I thought elementary particles always traveled at light speed (depening on media). Electrons are elementery particles but Neutrons and Protons both comprised 3 elementary particles (up and down quarks).

If you could post some links it would be helpful. If you can, I promise to read them tomorrow.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,09:40   

Guthrie,

Quote
It is possible to imagine things which have no physical existence, but in order to see if they do or not, you need to do science.
That's just what I hope for.

Quote
What makes you think that
1) God is the existence principle?
2) and invulnerable?


Because there is nothing more fundamental than existence itself, and because the existence of anything at all is perplexing in the extreme. Because something which has the power or property of self-existence is needed in order for anything to exist. Invulnerable for the same reasons.

The Greek gods were so different from anything that I would consider a real conception of God that I suspect alien visitation to have caused the whole mythology.
********************
Chris,

You say Darwin believed God caused life, but others have differed. It doesn't look like he left a clear set of beliefs, perhaps because he didn't have one. It seems to have been an evolving question in his life. He certainly at least dabbled in the problem of origin of life, and because he did not know that single-celled organisms are complex, abiogenesis probably didn't seem like a huge problem to him.
Obviously, others disagree that there is no evidence of design, and about who is doing the deceiving of children in schools. The arguments given by ID are not philosophical.
***************
Renier,

If it is not a miracle unless it goes against the laws of nature then there are no miracles, and that is more or less what I think. But if there is a God and he parted the Red Sea, is that a miracle? I say no, but it would indicate that this other being has means and knowledge about what can be done to nature that we do not have. Big deal. We can do similar things which animals cannot do.

Quote
I am gnashing my teeth not to insult you, after you made the above statement. I cannot for the life of me consider this statement to come from an honest person. Am I missing something? What detail does ID have? You don't read science journals, do you?

No, certainly not the kind that would require a biology degree to read. What I have read are things like the Meyer paper and the critique of it and the answers to the critique. I've read Miller's paper about the Flagellum and Dembski's answers to that. From these (and more) I get the impression the ID is way out in the lead. So, although I am unfortunately relying on second-hand information, I am reading what leading proponents have to say in trying to answe the Behe challenge, and it looks to me like they aren't even close to meeting it.
Some of the anti-evolution books I've read have critiquied quite a lot of the literature.

Quote

I think I see what this all about. You need a designer to be there. You want science to confirm this.

I can see why you'd suppose that but it isn't so. I wouldn't care if neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory was true or not, although I consider it fundamentally impossible for there to be both a God and for everything about this universe to be "unplanned, unguided, accidental, and without purpose." This is why I say Ken Miller is a confused IDist. There appears to be more of a range here than I expected about evolution theory's compatibility with deism and theism. Since someone said I should define Darwinism, I use that term so as not to contaminate the word evolution, which most IDists believe in to a greater to lesser extent. Darwinism or neoDarwinism, (which is not actually dependent upon whether or not Darwin himself believed in God) is the idea that all processes were random, life is an accident, and no God is needed to explain anything anywhere.
Actually, Ken Miller seems utterly schizophrenic. The Catholic God, the one who has authorized the pope to give people 500 days off of purgatory at his discretion, was just hands off while things like flagella got themselves together. Except that he intervened on the quantum level sometimes. In fairness, I haven't read his book. How can a guy who believes that the pope is Christ's vicar use the same terminology to describe the unfolding of the universe that a staunch atheist like Gould uses? To state that life unnfolded without plan or purpose is an atheistic metaphysical position.
So again, I could perhaps be some sort of theistic evolutionist, although I don't see a big difference between that and ID.

Quote
Do you think raping science with pseudo-science is the honourable thing to do? Behe does.
This level of hostility is a red flag to me. Behe accepts more of regular evolutionary science than most IDists, and he does not have a fundamental problem with his religion. He mentions that he always did suppose that God must have started life itself but it doesn't sound as if he pondered it extensively at the time. It is rather odd, when considering  the complexity of certain biological apparatuses and coming to a design inference, to be accused of rape and  pseudoscience. Behe may be wrong, but to say his position is foolish is...well foolish. None of this has anything to do with the evidence that evolution occured, because Behe thinks it did. Look at it this way - either there is a God or there isn't. And if there is a God, s/he either had something to do with how things turned out, or s/he didn't. I mean really, that is all this amounts to.

Quote
Just think about defending ID. What is it you are really defending?
I will admit that I am not completely without fear of Christianity at its worst. And for some, ID is just a convenient corroboration to bolster their real agenda, which is scripture. But I defend ID because I think it is true. The wedge document came from Johnson, whom I would agree is a fundamentalist. But it is not clear to me that he MUST have ID, or that he happens to think it is true.

Quote
Maybe this Intelligent Designer you are seeking is really nothing else but Evolution.
I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, but I do tend to think that way simply because I am a monist.

Quote
One can be spiritual without being dishonest, or stupid, or fundie.
Ah, we agree.
****************
Russell,

I can't believe IDists are rebranding themselves as anti-evolution when it is one of their main tenets that evolution occurred. In fact, that's why I use the term Darwinist, by which I mean neoDarwinism in its generally understood sense of random mutation + natural selection adequately accounting for life forms, and that the process was unguided and accidental.

I think it's odd you say ID ideas will be worth reading when they get into the literature. That's like a medieval Catholic saying the beliefs of the Cathars and Waldenses (who were massacred) will be worth considering when they get validated at a church council. It's all about the prevailing group in power. We are talking about psychological patterns of human behaviors. There's a good essay about the corruption of the peer-review process by Frank J. Tipler called Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
*********************
GCT,
About Darwin, I answered above but his daughter was not the only consideration. He specifically mentioned that Christian doctrine would send his father and grandfather to ####.
I wasn't saying ID is predicated on a cause of nature. Nature is predicated on a cause of nature. Id itself doesn't go that far.
I didn't say we must assume God exists, I said if God exists, we can either be aware of that or unaware.
Quote
Once again, how does one scientifically test for god?  Besides, spiritual or religious realm (really they are the same) either one is outside of science.
Some people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness. If so, that would come quite close to a proof of God. One can say religion and spirituality are the same, but there's a big difference in assuming a coherent, unified universe held together by some sort of Universal Mind versus fundamentalist Christian dogma.
Quote
you support ID because you see "no possibility of a universe without God" yet you want to claim that it is completely scientific.
I did not say I support ID because I believe in God. It may be that I am able to see the ID arguments because I am not prejudiced against them. I don't really care how evolution occurred, except that I don't see how I could ever agree with the metaphysical position of Dawkins or Gould. I find the kind of intervention that IC systems may require disturbing and hard to reconcile with my ideas of how God would work organically as a kind of Self-evolution via nature. I prefer front-loading, but maybe not. It maybe that the intelligence of the cell is just a reflection of the ongoing omnipresence of God in everything. If there is a life force (which I think there is) then why not a mind force?

Quote
God is part of everything .. is both evidence for and evidence against god all at the same time.
In an odd kind of way, yes.  Do you see the humor in that?

Quote
Can you cite one thing, just one that is strictly evidence for god that does not rely on the a priori assumption of god's existence?
The one I gave earlier. The existence principle.

Quote
The ID movement is not scientific, it is a religio-political movement centered on combatting atheism.  Their insistence on creating straw-man definitions of evolution that equate it to atheism speak to this.  You are even making the mistake of equating philosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.
 Despite that it is dedicated to the overthrow of the materialist worldview, it is also scientific. They are not mutually exclusive. And it is a little disingenuous for people here to insist that it does not teach atheism. I have spoken to many young people including my own and they have been taught a nihilistic worldview in school, one that they find depressing. Everyone needs to clean up their act. The Christians need reformation, and the evolutionists need to stop peddling atheism.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,09:59   

Quote
What I have read are things like the Meyer paper and the critique of it and the answers to the critique. I've read Miller's paper about the Flagellum and Dembski's answers to that. From these (and more) I get the impression the ID is way out in the lead.

Unfortunately, this claim is all too credible. It illustrates how well these charlatans are at beguiling those who (1) Lack any proper knowledge or background in the matter, and (2) Are predisposed to WANT to hear pleasingly simpleminded nonsense for whatever reason.

Let's face it, avocationist represents the overwhelming majority of the IDiots' potential (and target) audience. They have not said ONE THING that can stand up to examination, but the only possible venue where they can be obliged to sit still for genuine examination is in courtrooms - where they are invariably made to look like the liars they are. Otherwise, what they say sure looks good to those who will forever be incompetent to examine anything of the sort.

If only science worked by making good impressions and didn't need any actual evidence, ID would be a clear winner. Unless, of course, we actually want anything to WORK.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,10:04   

Quote
Some people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness.

And, some people are saying that pigs fly.
"Spiritual" interpretations of QM are piffle, pure and simple. Also, I have always found it quite funny that those opposed to the "reductionist" program find God in QM, the most reductionist theory, ever.
Put down The Dao of Physics and walk slowly away.
Or, if that's Paul Davies you're smoking, realize that he sells books by speculating wildly about the more far-fetched implications of physics.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,10:15   

Quote
Cogzoid,
Is that mass not dangerously close to a plank measurement; Therefore fairly meaningless?
Nope, not at all. .5MeV is quite large.  For comparison, room temperature is 1/40th of an electron volt.  500,000 >> 1/40.
Quote
I am not sure. But from electronics education, we are taught that electron speed is=light speed.
For electronics applications .999999 is about 1.  But "about 1" isn't equal to 1.
Quote
There are things such as atmosphere and medium that efectively slow them. But that is also true of photons.
Even in the best possible vacuum, electrons will never go the speed of light.  This is because of the fundamental rules, not because things are getting in the way.  And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light.  You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
Quote
I am working from memory here, so could very well be wrong. But I thought elementary particles always traveled at light speed (depening on media). Electrons are elementery particles but Neutrons and Protons both comprised 3 elementary particles (up and down quarks).
Your memory might need some refreshing.  Quarks have a rest mass as well.  Check The Standard Model for their rest masses.
Quote
If you could post some links it would be helpful. If you can, I promise to read them tomorrow.
I linked to Wikipedia in my previous post.  You can also google "The Standard Model" for plenty of info on particle physics.  There are plenty of great resources online, and you're just as capable of googling them as I am.  Good luck!

-Dan

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,10:41   

The Fermilab website's Inquiring Minds page is one source of physics info.

The Particle Adventure website has a Particle chart has tables of the various particles (fundamental and composite) and their interactions.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,10:45   

Interestingly, the particle chart I linked to seems to be the same thing as the chart that's included in Dan's standard model link. Maybe a slightly different format, but I'm assuming it's the same info.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,10:49   

The Standard Model is fairly standard.  Unless, of course, you're homeschooled and learn FDT.

-Dan

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,11:00   

Quote
Go over to UD and see what type of people you are siding with. They cannot even tolerate their own, let alone people with different views. Their own supporters gets banned for asking questions, for stating religious conviction or just for disagreeing with them.
Apparently you are right. It appears I have been banned, but without any explanation, and so far as I can find, without any notice.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,11:12   

Quote
I think it's odd you say ID ideas will be worth reading when they get into the literature. That's like a medieval Catholic saying the beliefs of the Cathars and Waldenses (who were massacred) will be worth considering when they get validated at a church council. It's all about the prevailing group in power. We are talking about psychological patterns of human behaviors.
If you really believe that the vetting of scientific ideas is comparable to the deliberations of church councils, then we're done here.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,11:43   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 08 2006,15:40)
Because there is nothing more fundamental than existence itself, and because the existence of anything at all is perplexing in the extreme. Because something which has the power or property of self-existence is needed in order for anything to exist. Invulnerable for the same reasons.

The Greek gods were so different from anything that I would consider a real conception of God that I suspect alien visitation to have caused the whole mythology.

So let me get this straight- you are trying to see if there is any scientific way to validate your idea that an omnipotent etc etc deity does exist?  Well, good luck looking for scientific evidence, but so far no one has found any.  The only vaguely scientific (and not actually scientific when you look at them closely) ideas that ID has had so far are irreducible complexity and those calculations of Dembskis, I think.  Both of which have been convincingly trounced by scientists.  

You could just say that "reality" is god and have done with it.  

As for your own opinion of Greek gods, what you are making is an argument from personal opinion.  I believe there is a large pink spider sitting on your ceiling above your computer.  It doesnt eat humans, only small insects, so you'll be alright.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,12:55   

Have the works of Dembski, Behe, or Denton been convincingly trounced by scientists somewhere that is readable by reasonably intelligent laypersons such as myself? Because when I read the critiques of their papers by said scientists, I was not impressed. So do you know where I can continue to find more info on the trouncing of their works and the refutation of books like Evolution, a theory in crisis?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,13:12   

That book, and others like it, were born trounced.

Because they largely tilt at straw-man versions of evolution, they mostly do not even attain "clash" with the actual claims of neo-Darwinian theory.

Several claims of Behe's IC have been discussed on PT, including the supposed IC of the flagellum.

Dembski's output has been treated by Mark Perakh, and by Shallitt and Elsberry. Those are well-known, so I'll assume you've seen them and were "not impressed." They're the best I've seen, so why don't you pick a point on which you feel Dembski comes out ahead and we can discuss it.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,14:12   

For the trouncing of Denton's "Evolution: a theory in crisis", all you have to do is pick up Denton's more recent book "Nature's Destiny", where he simply abandons the whole premise of the earlier book - that common descent is increasingly challenged by the evidence - and jumps on the "cosmological ID". I.e. evolution (the very process the earlier book claimed to debunk) happened after all, but it was somehow predestined by the physical constants of the universe.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,14:53   

Quote
Dembski's output has been treated by Mark Perakh, and by Shallitt and Elsberry. Those are well-known, so I'll assume you've seen them and were "not impressed." They're the best I've seen, so why don't you pick a point on which you feel Dembski comes out ahead and we can discuss it.
No, I'd be interested in where to find them.

Quote

Because they largely tilt at straw-man versions of evolution, they mostly do not even attain "clash" with the actual claims of neo-Darwinian theory.
What straw man versions did Denton argue against?

Quote
For the trouncing of Denton's "Evolution: a theory in crisis", all you have to do is pick up Denton's more recent book "Nature's Destiny", where he simply abandons the whole premise of the earlier book - that common descent is increasingly challenged by the evidence - and jumps on the "cosmological ID". I.e. evolution (the very process the earlier book claimed to debunk) happened after all, but it was somehow predestined by the physical constants of the universe.
Well, I've fairly recently read both, and I must be missing something. He seems to take an agnostic position, and speaks very little to any personal conclusions are to causation in either book. The first book outlines why he finds serious shortcomings in the inferences that Darwinism draws about the evolution of life. The second book speaks to cosmic fine tuning, and implies front-loading of some sort leading to species via unknown laws that dictate that there may be a limited number of possible animal types, and in which it appears that the arrival of man be the the ultimate purpose of evolution. In this sense, I find his second book a lot closer to a rather deep teleological outlook. But what I am not seeing is that the two books contradict each other. The first left completely open how the nongradual evolution might have occurred, and so, really, does the second.
If he at any time backtracked on his points in the first book, I'm unaware of it.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,15:29   

Quote
If [Denton] at any time backtracked on his points in the first book, I'm unaware of it.

This lays it out pretty clearly.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,15:41   

Avocationist-

Sorry I havent been online lately...but i have been rather busy.

I have been reading the posts....and i noticed something
You said this earlier
Quote
Darwinism or neoDarwinism, (which is not actually dependent upon whether or not Darwin himself believed in God) is the idea that all processes were random, life is an accident, and no God is needed to explain anything anywhere.


You seem to repeat the comment about unguided, unplanned processes rather frequently.

I fully agree that Science should not weight in on the purpose of life....however, the recent language being used is more of a defense against ID/creationism.  Your definition seems rather atheistic....but only because of one word...unplanned.  Science cannot determine if there is a plan....and therefore Science will not suggest a Theological plan.

Let me address a rather important part of your comment.
"No GOD is needed to explain anything."

God may be required to explain many, many things.....but I have never heard of God being needed to explain how something happens.  Science is strictly concerned with how something happens.  I tried to make this point earlier....but you may have missed it.

Lets consider the last 15 minutes....do you need God to explain anything that has occured?  Probably not.  

You seem to be most upset with the "atheistic" side of Science.  I dont really know how to help you reconcile this problem.  Science, as a rule, will never choose Theism.  If forced to make a decision between Atheism and Theism, Science must side with Atheism....even though Science remains an agnostic system.


I would like to suggest an experiment Avocationist...and everyone.

What if we quit using the words "think, believe, lean towards"....and what if we quit mentioning the works of others?

If you would really like to discuss this topic....dont mention Meyer's paper....mention his ideas on the Cambrian explosion.

That way....everyone can at least tell you what they think about his ideas on the Cambrian explosion....

Too often in these conversations...generalities are thrown around.  If you can keep it more narrow... conversation will be more fluid.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,18:10   

Quote
And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light.  You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
 This seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,18:39   

Hi Puck,

Well there seems to be a disconnect between what I understand is taught by major proponents of evolution and what you say about it. The idea that evolution, and indeed this whole universe, could be seriously attributed to  matter particles that exist without cause arranging themselves to the present day is indeed my understanding of the underlying philosophy, perhaps slightly hidden but for the most part open. Gould believed it and taught it, Dawkins insists on it, the president of Cornell insists on it, the 38 Nobel Prize winners signed their names to it, and so forth. The bit about random and unguided, and even unplanned is almost a catchphrase. As I already mentioned, Miller used to put it in his textbooks until perhaps he got called on it.

I mentioned it again today because someone said I needed to specify what I mean when I say Darwinism. Anyway, this seems to me the crux of the issue between ID and regular evolutionists.

I think I agree with you that we don't need to look to God to explain the how - at least not directly. You read too much into my remark. The main thing God needs to account for is existence itself, life itself. But remember, I don't believe in a separate God and so the question of whether or not God was involved in something doesn't compute.I don't see anything that occurs as being in some separate sphere.  

Quote
Lets consider the last 15 minutes....do you need God to explain anything that has occured?
Again, to me God is not a distant creator who set up a wind-up toy. I think reality is maintained by God at the core at all times, that physical reality is a continuous manifestation of some aspect of God and there is nothing nonmiraculous about the past 15 minutes (except that it remains within the laws of nature). For example, perhaps you think the Big Bang was a miracle. I think that the past 15 minutes was a miracle in exactly the same way and for the same reason.

BTW, I'd like to know what you think are the logical proofs of God.

Russ,

I'll have a look tomorrow.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,19:21   

Quote
The main thing God needs to account for is existence itself, life itself.


work the problem in reverse:

what is life? how do you define it?

self reproducible? energy conversion/synthesis?

once you start looking at what you define to be "life" it all of a sudden doesn't start looking all that complex.

about the "creator" issue...

you are certainly welcome to view all of existence as divine, and nobody will stop you.

however, of what practical value is that viewpoint?  how can it generate useable predictions?

it had thousands of years to do so, and failed to generate anything of significance in a practical sense.

take another look at ID.  same thing.  no testable predictions, no practical value.  

that's why it's not science.  nothing to test, nothing to generate predictions with, no practical value.

you don't feel a personal need to justify your belief in a creator, do you?

then why support a dead end fiction like ID?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,20:32   

GCT, the post about the "Flashlight Designer" is a gem! LOL :D

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,22:00   

Quote
Avothingie wrote :  Some people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness.


Some people are not thruthfull with you. The above quote could only relate to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that states that nothing (quantum level) happens/exists until it is observed (probability wave). Religious people would of course jump unto this and state that God is the active observer of all things, therefore they exist. Just a note, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is just one of many interpretations of what happens a quantum level.

But there is another problem. We battle understanding Quantum Mechanics (QM - QED, QCD too). The reason for this is we are seeing things that we have no frame of reference for. Chemists can think of an electron as a little billiard ball, but for a physicist it is a particle, giving off photons, each photon splitting into another electron and a positron, combining again and in the whole acting as an electromagnetic wave all the time. Nobody has ever seen these crazy little things, so how we explain them, from our own views are flawed. We know what they do, but we are not sure what they are. String theory will help here. String Theory also has implications that takes away the CC (ref Gribbon, ref X), so I assume ID people should/will be attacking it very soon. But we all know String theory is still going to take years, that the calculations are super hard and takes long, so the religious people still have a couple of years to hold on to their precious CC argument.

The advance/retarded (back in time/ forward in time transactional wave) wave idea (among others) of how QM works kick the Copenhagen Interpretation under the *ss, so the whole requirement for an observer falls away. Nonlocal is then not even a consideration. Bottom line, people are working on understanding these things. Are you not glad that people don't just say "Goddidit" but actually do experiments, work on theories in order to explain all this? I am glad, for sure!

So, if people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness, then they might just be sucking it out of their thumbs. Wishful thinking, no proof. And you know what? Even years after we have proof of local and not nonlocal, then creationists will still be saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function/exist without consciousness. And the sad thing, even nonlocal is not proof of any God, not at all, it just raises a question over "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light".

But, I also suppose I just wasted my time and that the next blog you hit you will still be stating your above statement. Oh well.

*Nobody is as deaf as those who do not WANT to hear.
*Niemand is so doof soos die wat nie WIL hoor nie.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,22:45   

Well, heres the stuff abouT Behe and "Darwins black box", i.e. why irreducible complexity is junk.

I'll find the Demsbki stuff later.

Oh yes, about the Copenhagen interpretation and the "observer" in quantum mechanics- why does the obersver have to be a machine or a human or something?  Is it not more than "an observation" is when the particle interacts with something else, since that is functionally the same as measuring it, so essentially wavefunctions are being collapsed all the time.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2006,22:58   

Here we are, one of the critiques of "no free lunch":

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

I think that covers it.  Now, I dont know all the stuff that well myself, but I would be interested in intelligent discussion.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,02:41   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 08 2006,20:53)
Quote
Dembski's output has been treated by Mark Perakh, and by Shallitt and Elsberry. Those are well-known, so I'll assume you've seen them and were "not impressed." They're the best I've seen, so why don't you pick a point on which you feel Dembski comes out ahead and we can discuss it.
No, I'd be interested in where to find them.


Behe's Empty Box.

http://www.talkdesign.org/

http://www.talkreason.org/

Bill Dembski and the case of the unsupported assertion

The Evolution of Dembski's Mathematics

Dembski's Explanatory Filter Delivers a False Positive (which Dembski claimed never happens)

Search for "Dembski" at the Panda's Thumb

Search for "Behe" at the Panda's Thumb

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,02:54   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,00:10)
Quote
And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light. You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
This seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

Yup, it seems that way, but it ain't. Quantum mechanics is weirder than a snake's suspenders. The best treatment for the layperson is QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Or, if you want to spend a few hours and have a broadband connection, you can watch Feynman himself explain at Richard Feynman: The Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,03:00   

Guthrie.

Actually, the Copenhagen Interpretation (Bohr's old brain child) would say that a machine does not count as an observer. Bizarre, I know. The Machine (Geiger-Muller, for instance) doing the measurements would be in a "half" state until someone reads the digits on the machine, then only the wave collapses. So, until the measurements on the machine is observed, there is no measurement yet, even though the experiment could have been performed a year ago. Strange....

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,04:17   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,00:10)
Quote
And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light. You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
This seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

Will you sign my statement against the atheistic massless particleism that is running rampant through the atheistic scientific establishment? Even their own defenders admit that they have no answer for my arguments. Cogzoid said,
Quote
I cannot compete.

Renier said,
Quote
The "Flashlight Designer [Theory]" is a gem.

Even the dogmatic massless particleists are jumping ship to my new FDT. Join up brother and together we can defeat the materialists!

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,04:59   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 08 2006,15:40)
GCT,
About Darwin, I answered above but his daughter was not the only consideration. He specifically mentioned that Christian doctrine would send his father and grandfather to ####.
I wasn't saying ID is predicated on a cause of nature. Nature is predicated on a cause of nature. Id itself doesn't go that far.

Avocationist, there's a lot of rubbish in your post.

Even if ID stops before saying the G word, they are still pointing to god and saying, "goddidit". I'm sorry, but that is neither scientific nor useful in the least.

Stop equating atheism and evolution, unless you will do the same for all science. Science and evolution can not say whether there is a guide or plan to evolution, because there is no way to physically uncover a plan or guide. That does NOT mean that science is atheistic. It just means science is unable to comment on that nature of the argument. You can include any god-belief you want and it has no bearing on evolution. You can believe that god caused the correct random mutations for natural selection to select in order to create humans, and it has no bearing on science what-so-ever. Science will not agree with you on that score, but it won't disagree with you either. That does NOT make it atheistic. If you continue with this line, then you should be intellectually honest and also say that physics is atheistic, as is chemistry and every other science.

Quote
I didn't say we must assume God exists, I said if God exists, we can either be aware of that or unaware.
Not scientifically we can't.

Quote
[quote]Once again, how does one scientifically test for god? Besides, spiritual or religious realm (really they are the same) either one is outside of science.
Some people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness. If so, that would come quite close to a proof of God. One can say religion and spirituality are the same, but there's a big difference in assuming a coherent, unified universe held together by some sort of Universal Mind versus fundamentalist Christian dogma.[/QUOTE]
This is flat out wrong. Who told you such rubbish?

Quote
[quote] you support ID because you see "no possibility of a universe without God" yet you want to claim that it is completely scientific.
I did not say I support ID because I believe in God. It may be that I am able to see the ID arguments because I am not prejudiced against them. I don't really care how evolution occurred, except that I don't see how I could ever agree with the metaphysical position of Dawkins or Gould. I find the kind of intervention that IC systems may require disturbing and hard to reconcile with my ideas of how God would work organically as a kind of Self-evolution via nature. I prefer front-loading, but maybe not. It maybe that the intelligence of the cell is just a reflection of the ongoing omnipresence of God in everything. If there is a life force (which I think there is) then why not a mind force?[/QUOTE]
No, you didn't say that, but you can't support ID unless you believe in god.

Also, your argument boils down to evolution = atheism because there are atheists who accept evolution. Every science has atheists in it (ID doesn't, but it's not science.) More rubbish.

Also, IC is a troubling concept, because the definition keeps changing. Really the only definition that has stayed the same is that something is IC is Behe says it is. It's also an impossible argument to prove. Behe says that something that is IC is impossible to occur by chance, but he can't know that. In order to know that, he would have to know all the chance occurances we know about, plus all the ones that we don't know about, which he can not do.

Quote
[quote]God is part of everything .. is both evidence for and evidence against god all at the same time.
In an odd kind of way, yes. Do you see the humor in that?[/QUOTE]No, I don't see the humor in the fact that you think it is science.

Quote
[quote]Can you cite one thing, just one that is strictly evidence for god that does not rely on the a priori assumption of god's existence?
The one I gave earlier. The existence principle.[/QUOTE]
More rubbish.
This "existence principle" seems to be a variant on the misuse of Causality (i.e. everything that occurs or comes into existence has a cause, so the universe must have had a cause, therefore god exists.) It is not evidence for god (in the scientific sense or otherwise).

Quote
[quote]The ID movement is not scientific, it is a religio-political movement centered on combatting atheism. Their insistence on creating straw-man definitions of evolution that equate it to atheism speak to this. You are even making the mistake of equating philosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.
Despite that it is dedicated to the overthrow of the materialist worldview, it is also scientific. They are not mutually exclusive. And it is a little disingenuous for people here to insist that it does not teach atheism. I have spoken to many young people including my own and they have been taught a nihilistic worldview in school, one that they find depressing. Everyone needs to clean up their act. The Christians need reformation, and the evolutionists need to stop peddling atheism.[/QUOTE]
You prove my point. You invent strawmen where evolution = atheism, but you can't come up with a reason why. You also can't distinguish between evolution and any other science as to why it is more atheistic, except to say Dawkins and Gould, which is rubbish reasoning since there are atheists in all scientific disciplines.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,07:45   

Renier,

Not only the Copenhagen interpretation, but later experiments are supposed to have supported this. One was Alain Aspect and then Bell's theorem. But I make no secret of the fact I cannot understand this stuff. I have read through maybe 3 such books and end up bogging down when my lack of comprehension piles up. So I take what they say as provisional - there's some bright and informed people who are reaching such and such conclusion. That's all. And while I like it, I'm quite skeptical because I see the pattern of human beings to jump to unwarranted conclusions long before they have ammassed enough facts or understood them.
I think you might need to update your ideas on God believers. You say creationists are into this stuff. Maybe they are, but it doesn't really seem up their alley to me. More new age or eastern.

What is the CC?

Yeah, I'm real fond of string theory, too.

Quote
And the sad thing, even nonlocal is not proof of any God, not at all, it just raises a question over "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light".
 Well, now, that's true, or at least not God as commonly thought of as a personal and separate being. But it sure does open up some interesting vistas.
***********
Toejam,
Quote

what is life?  how do you define it?
For you, this is apparently an easy question. I don't think we have the answer, though.
******************
Guthrie it appears you forgot to include the link to why IC is junk. But as I mentioned, I have already read Miller's The Flagellum Unspun.
***************
GCT:
It's not me "continuing with this line." I have no argument with what you say and I will agree that all science is guilty of atheism if all branches' major proponents publicly insist that their branches prove that we do not need a God to explain our existence. You say science has no ability to comment or ability to discern god or purpose. Great. No problem. If your interpretation is correct then I have no beef with it. But tell it to Dawkins, and Dennett, and Mr. Cornell, and the Weisel 38. You can tell Gould too, but he's dead. Oh, and the guy who said that evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever devised.  Forgot his name.

Quote
No, you didn't say that, but you can't support ID unless you believe in god.
This is perhaps true. Although as I mentioned, there is Lloyd Pye and his interesting website. He believes all life here was instilled pruposefully by aliens, and I wrote and asked him what he thought of the origin of said aliens, and he replied that he works on what he can know and not on what he can't. ID is not a theory of life, or origins or mechanism. Yes, perhaps it needs to become that, for example by finding laws that govern the unfolding of life, but all ID says is we can detect design.
Now, you insist that science cannot ever possibly address whether there is a God. But if there is no evidence that will ever satisfy you about something so humanly possible as design detection, then I guess you're right. I don't agree science will never address it. I don't say it will, I say it might. Because it might turn up in the next few decades that design in living systems becomes so obvious that no one can deny it, and it might turn up that we find out things on the nature of physical matter that require an origin, or something else I haven't thought of. That would be what I'd call an indirect evidence for the existence of some sort of godlike being.

Quote
Behe says that something that is IC is impossible to occur by chance, but he can't know that.  In order to know that, he would have to know all the chance occurances we know about, plus all the ones that we don't know about, which he can not do.
Well I disagree and I think they are well along the way to examing these issues. But you think we should give up because we just can't and that's that.

(Existence principle) "It is not evidence for god."
But of course no one has an answer to it, either.

Quote
You also can't distinguish between evolution and any other science as to why it is more atheistic, except to say Dawkins and Gould, which is rubbish reasoning since there are atheists in all scientific disciplines.
We are on the verge of calling one another dishonest. I said a lot more than D and G. I said that it is pervasive in our academic culture and taught in school texts. I am pretty glad that you and Puck insist that this problem is overblown, but you've got your head in the sand and seem to be simply pretending that it isn't going on.
*******************

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,08:16   

Quote

You also can't distinguish between evolution and any other science as to why it is more atheistic, except to say Dawkins and Gould, which is rubbish reasoning since there are atheists in all scientific disciplines.

Quote

We are on the verge of calling one another dishonest. I said a lot more than D and G. I said that it is pervasive in our academic culture and taught in school texts. I am pretty glad that you and Puck insist that this problem is overblown, but you've got your head in the sand and seem to be simply pretending that it isn't going on.


Avocationist....I can understand your concerns.  You believe that the current state of Science is atheistic.  You believe that this is intrusive to your belief system.

I will not argue with you that Science has, on occasion, stepped away from the agnostic and approached the Atheistic.  If your concerns are simply the atheistic nature of science, and the apparent flaws in Evolutionary Theory....then you are not really doing anything to help.
If a great machine is broken....you should attempt to fix it.  If Science has become toO atheistic.....don't try to make science theistic.....try to make science agnostic.  

If the current Evolutionary Theory is inadequate....then attempt to refine it further.  Don't try to replace it with a completely untested theory that is incapable of making predictions or explaining phenomenon.

Let us be truly critical here....I would accept ID as a valid theory....if ID theory contained a mechanism that could explain all the evidence as well as Evolutionary Theory....and explain further unexplained evidence.  However, ID theory claims that all phenomenon are attributed to a Designer....and ID theory makes no statement about Who, How, or Why the Designer works.

That requirement of a mechanism is bothersome....but necessary.  The requirement of a testable and explainable mechanism is what seperates Science from Mythology.  Im sure many mythological explanations of nature are far better at explaining phenonenon....but they completely lack a mechanism that can be analyzed.

I really do understand your problems with the current state of Science Avocationist...Atheism has no place in Science....but neither does Theism.  We should be working on solving the problem....not working towards making the problem worse.

There may very well be a new theory to explain all past biology in the future....but it will not be ID....because ID does not actually explain anything....in a rational, physical, testable way.

Quote
Behe says that something that is IC is impossible to occur by chance, but he can't know that.  In order to know that, he would have to know all the chance occurances we know about, plus all the ones that we don't know about, which he can not do.


BTW...Avocationist....you missed the point.  To prove Behe correct....we would have to know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING.  Lets assume that it is impossible to know EVERYTHING.....that is a safe assumption.

You were right, they are on there way to knowing EVERY possible chance....but they will never get there.  It is completely irrational to believe that at some point we will know EVERYTHING[QUOTE]

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,08:45   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,13:45)
GCT:
It's not me "continuing with this line." I have no argument with what you say and I will agree that all science is guilty of atheism if all branches' major proponents publicly insist that their branches prove that we do not need a God to explain our existence. You say science has no ability to comment or ability to discern god or purpose. Great. No problem. If your interpretation is correct then I have no beef with it. But tell it to Dawkins, and Dennett, and Mr. Cornell, and the Weisel 38. You can tell Gould too, but he's dead. Oh, and the guy who said that evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever devised. Forgot his name.

So, evolution's defenders are not allowed to be atheist? What about Stephen Hawking? He's an atheist. Oops, well I guess that there goes physics. Physics is now atheist.
Of course, it makes it much easier for you to make this argument when you can ignore people like Ken Miller. Yeah, he's no true evolutionist, just like he's no true Scotsman.
Quote
This is perhaps true. Although as I mentioned, there is Lloyd Pye and his interesting website. He believes all life here was instilled pruposefully by aliens, and I wrote and asked him what he thought of the origin of said aliens, and he replied that he works on what he can know and not on what he can't.

And he has not a shred of evidence for that. Plus, where did the aliens come from?
Quote
ID is not a theory of life, or origins or mechanism.

Then, what good is it?
Quote
Yes, perhaps it needs to become that, for example by finding laws that govern the unfolding of life, but all ID says is we can detect design.

Which gets us where exactly?
Quote
Now, you insist that science cannot ever possibly address whether there is a God. But if there is no evidence that will ever satisfy you about something so humanly possible as design detection, then I guess you're right. I don't agree science will never address it. I don't say it will, I say it might. Because it might turn up in the next few decades that design in living systems becomes so obvious that no one can deny it, and it might turn up that we find out things on the nature of physical matter that require an origin, or something else I haven't thought of. That would be what I'd call an indirect evidence for the existence of some sort of godlike being.

Yes, it might turn out that humans are designed. Happy now? Now, how will you ever figure that out through science? That's the question that neither you nor any of your ID buddies has any answer to.

First of all, it would not constitute evidence for any godlike being, even if we did discover we were designed. Science is not about finding evidence for god. Get that through your head please.

Second, it won't come to that anyway. IDists refuse to make any statement about the designer. Yet, in all cases of design detection we either know who the designer is or can make warranted assumptions about the designer. So, yes, design detection is humanly possible and it happens all the time, but not when the designer is 100% completely unknown and unknowable. Try again.
Quote
Well I disagree and I think they are well along the way to examing these issues. But you think we should give up because we just can't and that's that.

Yes, people should give up trying to prove that which is unprovable.
Quote
(Existence principle) "It is not evidence for god."
But of course no one has an answer to it, either.

So, anything we don't have an answer to is evidence for god? God of the gaps anyone?

Also, we can't disprove god (through science) but you similarly can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I guess you should believe in His Noodly Appendage too.
Quote
We are on the verge of calling one another dishonest. I said a lot more than D and G. I said that it is pervasive in our academic culture and taught in school texts. I am pretty glad that you and Puck insist that this problem is overblown, but you've got your head in the sand and seem to be simply pretending that it isn't going on.

I'm not calling you dishonest. I'm saying your arguments are rubbish. If your religious sensibilities are hurt by the fact that science can not and will not recognize god then, quite frankly, too bad. Part of the utility of science is that it will not try to recognize god. When science did that, people tried (in the name of science) to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. How far did that get us?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,08:53   

Quote (Renier @ Feb. 09 2006,09:00)
Actually, the Copenhagen Interpretation (Bohr's old brain child) would say that a machine does not count as an observer. Bizarre, I know. The Machine (Geiger-Muller, for instance) doing the measurements would be in a "half" state until someone reads the digits on the machine, then only the wave collapses. So, until the measurements on the machine is observed, there is no measurement yet, even though the experiment could have been performed a year ago. Strange....

Well, I dont doubt that the Copenhagen interpretation is a way of looking at it, I just cant see if the idea that the measuring instrument and the thing is is measuring are all in one system, which can be figured as a wvefunction make sany sense unless you look at it figuratively.
Certainly not physically.  The geiger counter sits there whatever you do.  

If the experiment was done a year ago, the particles still interacted, and so on, its just you didnt know the result.  How about an experiment say (you are in the lab with the equipment, set it up, sit down and read a paper until 5pm and its time to go home) where the reading wil mean that your lab door is locked or not, depending on what result happens.  So you wont know what the result is until you get up to leave (we assume that the experiment will definitely be finished in the time before 5pm) and find the door locked, or not.  Does that mean that the entire laboratory is a wavefunction?  If so, can you not just say that everything is multiple, indeed myriad wavefunctions, that continually collapse every time the particles interact?  

Which I think argues nicely round to the many universes theory.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,09:02   

Guthrie,

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

I'm sorry to say that there has got to be something better than this. Also, while I have read a number of Dembski's essays, I cannot critique his mathematical ideas because that is way out of my league. But just in the first couple of paragraphs, I find some pretty tiresome stuff. This is an exceedingly long article in which he starts out by saying that if Dembski considers something highly improbable, it amounts to an argument from ignorance and god-of-the-gaps. Then he calls specified complexity, which is a perfectly valid informational concept a "middleman" that Dembski is using to cover up the fact that his actual argument amounts to the argument from ignorance.

Well, well, well. I'm tired to death of hearing about arguments from ignorance. If we don't know, we don't know, and fantasizing ain't the answer. There is nothing invalid about telling someone that their proposal is utterly unrealistic. And we can't very well get started finding out what is realistic if we cling to said fantasy.

If someone in 1402 comes up with a green cheese theory of the moon, someone might have very good reason for disputing while admitting that they have no way with the tools of 1402 to get a handle on what it is made of. And the green cheese guy says, well you are making a negative argument, and what's your theory?

Being already annoyed, I clicked on some links at the sidebar and read what Dembski had to say about this guy. We don't have time for this.
*****************************
Russell,

Quote
This lays it out pretty clearly.


Well, I made it through 3 pages, out of 5 which is quite doable. I failed to understand many of his points. He also uses a gratuitious amount of name calling with vague assertions to show that Denton is "naive" and "fails to undertand" this or that aspect of evolution theory. His thinking is "outmoded." Yet there is surprisingly little meat in this critique.

I didn't get why he thinks Denton's thought in Crisis involved outmoded typological thinking. But notice that he said his style was typical of 80's era creationism. What filler. He has only 5 pages, and he fills it with filler.

He calls Denton's perhaps most interesting (to me) chapter about equidistance "spurious." Now, I'd love to know why.

This reviewer seems to think that putting scare quotes around something equals an adequate refutation of it.

Also he says Denton abounds in "uncritical adaptationism" which he says is inappropriate to modern biology. Unfortunately, he didn't go into enough detail for me to get a handle on what he was getting at.

This is as far as I've gotten with the various links presented. I am not trying to be difficult. I have read the critique of the Meyer paper, I have read the critique by Miller of IC. Those were readable and accessible. But these two papers are just shite. We need critics that get to the heart of the arguments and don't waste our time.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,09:12   

In response to:
Quote
Behe says that something that is IC is impossible to occur by chance, but he can't know that. In order to know that, he would have to know all the chance occurances we know about, plus all the ones that we don't know about, which he can not do.

Avo wrote:
Quote
Well I disagree and I think they are well along the way to examing these issues. But you think we should give up because we just can't and that's that.
This is indeed baffling. Behe's concept of IC is that it cannot be explained by any conceivable evolutionary pathway. But, indeed, "they" are well along the way to examining these issues. Only "they" are not the IDers, they are the scientists (read: "Darwinists") behind the scores of publications presented to Judge Jones on the evolution of the immune system, for instance. It's Behe's thesis - that these "IC" systems couldn't have arisen by evolution - that says there's no point in trying to figure out how they evolved. What makes you think the IDers are "well on their way"? What research can you point to that actually supports Behe's thesis?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,09:13   

And here's another thing. This is not exactly the first time that I have seen neoDarwinian evolution defenders dismiss someone of Denton or Behe's calibre of misunderstanding fairly basic, undergrad level stuff about evolution theory.

It would appear, in fact, that this is a pervasive problem and a frequent one.

So, if a person with a Ph.D. in, say, molecular biology, someone with a presumably and apparently high IQ and who is not a fundamentalist with some pre-existing serious impediment to understanding evolution still so often fails to understand it, then evolution theory must be very, very hard to really grasp. And this tells me that perhaps it is a big mistake to try to get the public to understand it. It just isn't suitable for general consumption. No wonder it is having all this political fallout. 9th graders are not subjected to theoretical physics.

It may be that the teaching of evolution theory should be reserved to the graduate level, and then only in those with the appropriate majors. At the very least, it should not be taught until at least the junior year of college.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,09:28   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,15<!--emo&:0)
Well, well, well. I'm tired to death of hearing about arguments from ignorance. If we don't know, we don't know, and fantasizing ain't the answer. There is nothing invalid about telling someone that their proposal is utterly unrealistic. And we can't very well get started finding out what is realistic if we cling to said fantasy.

If someone in 1402 comes up with a green cheese theory of the moon, someone might have very good reason for disputing while admitting that they have no way with the tools of 1402 to get a handle on what it is made of. And the green cheese guy says, well you are making a negative argument, and what's your theory?

You should be tired of hearing it, because it is one of your arguments, and people are probably tired of pointing it out to you.

First off, if we don't know, we don't know. I agree with that, so why do we have to say that it is god when we don't know? Fantasizing that god is the answer is certainly not the answer.

Second, in your example, the analogy is flawed because that person would not have evidence to back the green cheese theory, while evolution has tons of evidence. Also, it's not wrong to ask what someone's competing theory is, if they say they have one like IDists say they do. The fact that they can't actually produce one is not my problem.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,09:32   

No, Avo. Evolutionary theory - at least the basics - is not really really hard to understand. Read Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is" if you haven't already.

Behe and Denton don't fail to grasp it because they're too dumb or because it's too hard - they just don't want it to be true. That's why they don't go to the trouble of really learning what they're trying to critique: that would just make it harder.

As to Denton Then vs. Denton Now: it's really quite simple. His first book (with its "equidistance" argument you find so appealing, but that no educated biologist has ever found any merit in) was all about denying common descent. His second book accepts it. Pretty fundamental, no?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,11:00   

Quote
For you, this is apparently an easy question. I don't think we have the answer, though.


...

so, you won't even attempt to address the question for yourself?

you base your entire argument on life being somehow "special", but can't even define what makes it special to begin with?

yikes.

you need to go back to some basic questioning about your own beliefs.

it's like saying you think math is "special", but don't even know how to add.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,11:24   

Avocationist-

Your green-cheese moon analogy is just bad.

But...I think I can give you a good analogy.

Long, long, long ago....people had no idea where heat came from...they debated it a great deal and finally...they developed a theory.

The suggested that Heat was a weightless, invisible liquid(the concept of gas also escaped them).  They continued this line of thinking for a very long time.  One day a man suggested that they were wrong and that it was insane to assume heat was a weightless, invisible liquid.  They told him that he was just ignorant.  They asked him what his theory was, and he actually told them.  They then asked him why his theory was better, and once again he told them.

This man developed an experiment...in which he generated heat using friction.  He made sure that no chemical reaction was occuring...and made sure that the two pieces of metal that were rubbing against each other were isolated so that nothing could "enter" them.  When he demonstrated this little experiment...everyone accepted his work.  He had presented a situation where the old theory had a hole, and demonstrated the superiority of the his theory.

However, if he had merely suggested that heat was a form of energy...without demonstrating the further explanatory power of his theory, or the superiority of his theory; then no one would have any reason to take him seriously...even if he was correct.

Better analogy, and it actually happened.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,11:34   

Quote
So, if a person with a Ph.D. in, say, molecular biology, someone with a presumably and apparently high IQ and who is not a fundamentalist with some pre-existing serious impediment to understanding evolution still so often fails to understand it, then evolution theory must be very, very hard to really grasp.


Is there such a person? I think there was an ARN thread some while back where the ID proponents were asked to name ANYONE who was familiar with evolutionary theory, had no religious convictions against it, but still denied the basic principles. I don't think anyone could come up with a single person.

A couple of people (NOT necessarily scientists, mind you, just people who knew the concepts of evolution) were suggested, but a little digging into their writing showed that their objections were basic religious rejection even if they didn't shout "praise Jeezus" while they rejected.

Finally, anyone interested in facts and evidence ended up agreeing: Evolution is NOT what the evolution-deniers find hard to grasp. Their own religion-based fundamental *unwillingness to accept it* was what they found impossible to overcome.

Ultimately, this is because the ONLY reason anyone rejects ANY explanation of anything, is because they find some other explanation more appealing. Since evolution is based on evidence, and has been thoroughly vetted by tens of thousands of professionals for 150 years, rejection implies some other explanation whose appeal is beyond question. Only religion qualifies.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,12:20   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 08 2006,15:40)

####, I did forget the link.  Thats what comes of posting at work where there are too many distractions...





Quote

I can see why you'd suppose that but it isn't so. I wouldn't care if neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory was true or not, although I consider it fundamentally impossible for there to be both a God and for everything about this universe to be "unplanned, unguided, accidental, and without purpose." This is why I say Ken Miller is a confused IDist.

Well, yes, with a God the entire universe would probably exhibit some kind of purpose etc etc.  The problem is how we, from our limited perspective, can say.  And the answer so far is that we cant.  I cant speak for Miller, but I understand there are many Christians and others who see no problem with evolution, because all it takes is the deity to set up the original starting criteria, and since that area of cosmology is still quite fuzzy, and we cant say what happened before the big bang, theres still some room for a deity.  

Quote

There appears to be more of a range here than I expected about evolution theory's compatibility with deism and theism. Since someone said I should define Darwinism, I use that term so as not to contaminate the word evolution, which most IDists believe in to a greater to lesser extent. Darwinism or neoDarwinism, (which is not actually dependent upon whether or not Darwin himself believed in God) is the idea that all processes were random, life is an accident, and no God is needed to explain anything anywhere.

Thats quite impressive misunderstanding here.  Darwinism does not exist, as such.  



Quote

Actually, Ken Miller seems utterly schizophrenic. The Catholic God, the one who has authorized the pope to give people 500 days off of purgatory at his discretion, was just hands off while things like flagella got themselves together. Except that he intervened on the quantum level sometimes. In fairness, I haven't read his book. How can a guy who believes that the pope is Christ's vicar use the same terminology to describe the unfolding of the universe that a staunch atheist like Gould uses? To state that life unnfolded without plan or purpose is an atheistic metaphysical position.
So again, I could perhaps be some sort of theistic evolutionist, although I don't see a big difference between that and ID.





Quote

To state that life unnfolded without plan or purpose is an atheistic metaphysical position.

Purpose is in the eye of the beholder.  Thats why it is not science.  Some people can indeed say that life unfolded according to evolution without a plan, others can also say that life unfolded by evolutionary means, and that was according to gods plan.  

But, here is the crux- how can you say that it happened by gods plan?  Where is the evidence for god?


Anyway, I guess I've had it up to here with your havering.  
If you wish to not be taken as a laughing stock, please explain why you still think that Behe et al are correct, i.e. explain how Miller etc were wrong in their critique of Behe.  Put up or shut up time.  

(If you cant understand it, go and ask them at uncommon dissent for help.  Or us.  We know lots about these things, perhaps we can help make it all clearer to you.  Indeed, feel free to take several days to read up on it to refresh your memory.  We arent going anywhere.)

Quote

But I defend ID because I think it is true.

So whats your evidence?  Give us some, or we shall consider you a glaikit numpty.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,14:51   

Quote
glaikit numpty


??

ok, i gotta call this one in.

alleviate my ignorance, please.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,16:27   

Re "Some people can indeed say that life unfolded according to evolution without a plan, others can also say that life unfolded by evolutionary means, and that was according to gods plan."

Yup. Even if there is a plan, one would kind of have to know the goal of the plan in order to say whether evolution by natural processes is or isn't sufficient to accomplish that plan. Personally, I don't see how any cosmic purpose (if there is one) could depend on the biological details of how our bodies are constructed. (Or for that matter, at what location in the universe we appeared.)

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,17:02   

What does it mean when a moderator takes the vowels out of your post? Just to delete it is one thing, but to make hash out of it seems pretty rude. I find this upsetting. I've been on forums for about 3 or 4 years, and never before had a problem.

Puck,

Well, I do not consider the current state of sciene intrusive of my belief system. I just for some reason have an interest in the debate over the veracity of evolutionary theory, but I am not personally threatened.

You say we should make science more agnostic. I think that as far as people here are concerned, it is perfectly alright with them so long as they maintain the stance that science and spirit are and always will be separate spheres, so one does not touch the other. And that may or may not be the case. I would like to point out, however, that so long as that is true it means we are in ignorance. For either spirit is not true and we should come to know that of a certainty, or it is true and science will come to know of it.

Of course I do think that current evolutionary theory is inadequate and I think it must get new ideas. I have thought so since I read Wells chapter on homology. That was about two years ago. I think that for lack of greater knowledge, evolutionary theory has placed all its eggs in the mutation basket.

There's no sense being impatient and rude (not you, the whole community) about what ID has not accomplished. People are working on it and knowledge is increasing. You want predictions. I predict that our knowledge will, hopefully soon, show more clearly what makes an organism what it is, and that it will be proof that a species cannot become another species, in other words, limits to change. Actually, species isn't right, probably genus. Species have a bit of flexibility.
The problem with other mechanisms, like frontloading, is that they tend to look planned and intelligent.

ID theory does not claim all phenomena are due to a designer. Many believe in common descent and even mutations, but they think some systems show design.

You know, the bit about ID not identifying the personal attributes of the designer - it just has been said so many times. ID is a design inference, and while it may leave some unanswered questions or lead to new routes of inquiry, that is as far as ID goes. It looks designed, it doesn't look like Darwinian pathways made this. Why is it reasonable to ask for everything at once?

I agree with you that it would be somewhat unsatisfying to be left with no mechanism. Some ID people accept that.

I do not think we have to know everything about everything to prove Behe correct. There seems to be a huge idea here to accept that just anything at all can happen and so why not just accept that it is therefore probable enough.
**************
GCT,
Perhaps we should just go with Puck's advice and let the idea percolate out that science should be agnostic. I don't care if Hawking is an atheist. Kids are being taught in school nihilistic philosophy in their evolution class, and perhaps they need not be.

What good is ID? It is design detection.

Which gets us where? It gets us back into reality, if indeed the IDists are right that Darwinists are chasing a flawed theory.

How will we ever figure out through science if we were designed? Well, I think we still have along way to go before we should give up. There's so much unknown now about life forms. It's perhaps one reason people should invest a little less emotion. We are in a growing pains stage now. We can chill out and watch things unfold.

You say that if we discovered we were designed, it wouldnt prove god but that's what I've been saying. I believe in God but I don't necessarily think the designer is God. And BTW, neither did the gnostic Christians, who were numerous at one time.

Science is not about finding evidence for God - yes, very right, but neither can it insist that evidence for god is an impossibility.

You don't know that God is unknowable. And if God herself is undetectable, that doesn't mean there will be no evidence of her existence/works.

To say that nature and existence require an ultimate source of a radically different kind is not to say that "anything we don't know means there is a god."

Oh no, I did not ever say that my religious sensibilities were hurt because science does not recognize God, I merely have said that I am one of the very few people I've run across who holds out at least the hope that science will find said evidence. Most religious people also think God is forever out of the purview of science.

Now, now, I don't think scientists were trying to find out how many angels could dance on a pin. That may have been a theological discussion.

And if they were then let the utter foolishness that men are capable of be a lesson to you, and don't imagine that because it is 2006 and we have laser surgery that you and all of us here are automatically immune.
*******************
BTW, whoever recommended Feynman's book on the theory of light and matter - I just ordered it from Amazon.
***********************************
OK, this post is long enough. What does it take to get banned here? Do you ban people much? Are they warned first? I have always heard that PT is pretty intolerant. You guys seem alright. I thought this was PT but I guess it is related.

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,17:51   

@@Avo,

Are you at least telling yourself that you write to us with honesty?
I'll bite, since I have endless hope in the power and beauty and horror that is existence, and imagine you do.

If you actually read - meaning think about - any decent amount of the material (layperson's stuff, even) with the merest grain of honest intention, you will end up following one of two paths: you will believe in theistic, currently (and likely forever) unproveable, evolutionary theory, or else atheistic evolutionary theory - if you actually ever cared about the questions that biology raises, and offers approximate answers for, that is.
If all you care about is proving to yourself how important you are, and how immortal, and how loved by all, you have been very, very impolite to waste other people's time here.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,17:59   

Avocationist-

Quote
I would like to point out, however, that so long as that is true it means we are in ignorance. For either spirit is not true and we should come to know that of a certainty, or it is true and science will come to know of it.


This is wrong.  No one is claiming that they are totally seperate spheres....they only seem that way.

God could have created Reality 5 minutes ago.  You would have no way of knowing if he did or not.  You assume, however, that the world is not an illusion.  You assume that the world has been here for awhile.  Science simply assumes that there is no Divine intervention taking place.

God could easily have "evolved" all living things.  He could have stepped in and done it all, and simply made it appear to be "natural selection" and mutation.  It could all just be an illusion.  This, however, is a situation better left to philosophy.  In reality 2+2=5....but since all of our empirical evidence points towards 4 it is most helpful to assume 4 is the correct answer..

Quote
You want predictions. I predict that our knowledge will, hopefully soon, show more clearly what makes an organism what it is, and that it will be proof that a species cannot become another species, in other words, limits to change.


This isnt what kind of prediction we are asking for, and I hope this was more of a joke than an honest answer.

The theory of gravity predicts that objects will fall at an acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s^2

The theory of Evolution predicts that animals have and will evolve from each other through a process of natural selection.  This predicts that in the future animals will adapt and evolve, and that as we search through the fossil records of the past, we will find more and more related organisms that display a timeline of evolution.

Your prediction is not a prediction made by ID...it is a prediction about ID.

Quote
You know, the bit about ID not identifying the personal attributes of the designer - it just has been said so many times. ID is a design inference, and while it may leave some unanswered questions or lead to new routes of inquiry, that is as far as ID goes.


So....ID is in no way in competition with 'Darwinism'?  If your statement is true...then ID has absolutely no opposition to current Evolutionary Theory.  'Darwinists' already attribute design to "natural selection"....therefore ID is simply reinforcing the current theory.  
Good....I was under the impression that ID was an alternative theory to biological Evolutionary Theory....its good to know that it simply a theory that is capable of reinforcing Evolution.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,18:07   

Russell,
Quote
This is indeed baffling.
No, what I meant is that Behe and Dembski and no doubt others are looking into how to realistically detect design and how. It seems a couple of people here said it can't be done at all or we would have to be omniscient. I don't agree.
Quote
It's Behe's thesis - that these "IC" systems couldn't have arisen by evolution - that says there's no point in trying to figure out how they evolved.
Well, I can see where this is deflating. But I don't think anyone, including Behe, thinks we should stop trying to understand these systems, and even if we think they were designed, does not mean we will not try to figure out how.
Quote
Read Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is" if you haven't already
Is it a book? Isn't he ancient?
Quote
As to Denton Then vs. Denton Now: it's really quite simple. His first book (with its "equidistance" argument you find so appealing, but that no educated biologist has ever found any merit in) was all about denying common descent. His second book accepts it. Pretty fundamental, no?
I'd like to see a good critique of his equidistance argument. Now, you say his first book was about denying common descent and now he accepts it. Here, I think, is what may have happened. Common descent is not a question I had examined in great detail in my own mind, because I am convinced gradualism didn't happen, and while I had heard of saltation theories, they seemed pretty absurd to me because I could not really envision how they could occur. Special creation seems silly but I cannot really say what I would have answered about how the various species got here. I remember being less than pleased to read that Behe believes in common descent, because to me that means gradualism. Yet now, on Uncommon Descent, Dave Scot has been pushing the issue, and I thought more concretely about it. I realized that common descent indeed makes more sense because I always envision my natural God doing things slowly, organically and from within. Of course there are now some saltation ideas getting thrown around, and Dr. Davison's semi-meiotic idea of frontloading. So now I would say that the best ideas going are either of a natural unfolding of inputted genetic potential according to law or possibly that there is an intelligence that resides in the DNA of organisms and reconfigures them. That would be a form of special creation, but all new types would be born from physical parents.
By arguing 20 years ago against gradualism, while actually remaining agnostic on what did happen, and now having his  thoughts evolve in the direction of a finely tuned universe, he is obviously thinking of a form of common descent as I am and probably with some form of saltation. I see no real going backward closer to Dawinism in this thought process.
***************
Flint,
Quote
while evolution has tons of evidence.

It has a lot of data, and a fair amount of knowledge, but how that is put together as a theory has many problems and so not everyone is convinced that the data amounts to coherent evidence for the theory as thus far proposed. And remember, only the YECers deny evolution occured, so there is agreement on the meaning of some of the data. And among IDists, many believe in common descent. But there's plenty of problems with gradualism.

Quote
Also, it's not wrong to ask what someone's competing theory is, if they say they have one like IDists say they do.
They don't have one, and I don't think they say they do. What they have is a competing mental approach, one that doubts gradualism and randomness.
**************
 Sir Toejam,

I do attempt to address the question of what is life. I have for some time now. I consider it a deep question, and I don't think chemistry is the sum total of life.
************
Puck again,

Yeah, I'm glad it turned out so well for the phlogiston. But remember what happened to Semmelweis. He actually did studies before presenting to his colleagues how they were killing new mothers but they didn't want to hear it and hounded him to his sad grave.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,18:16   

Dear Tired,

Quote
Are you at least telling yourself that you write to us with honesty?  
I'll bite, since I have endless hope in the power and beauty and horror that is existence, and imagine you do.

If you actually read - meaning think about - any decent amount of the material (layperson's stuff, even) with the merest grain of honest intention, you will end up following one of two paths: you will believe in theistic, currently (and likely forever) unproveable, evolutionary theory, or else atheistic evolutionary theory - if you actually ever cared about the questions that biology raises, and offers approximate answers for, that is.
If all you care about is proving to yourself how important you are, and how immortal, and how loved by all, you have been very, very impolite to waste other people's time here.


Well, I was off to bed but I can't resist. What  are you talking about? I find your assertions astonishing. do I understand you right?

Atheism is the only honest response to reading about evolution? Theism amounts to egotism?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,18:52   

Quote
But remember what happened to Semmelweis. He actually did studies before presenting to his colleagues how they were killing new mothers but they didn't want to hear it and hounded him to his sad grave.


Good example.....but there were 2 problems.  
1.  Semmelweis never really tried to present his argument.  
2.  He actually had evidence on his side.  He could predict that if doctors washed their hands...they could save lives.  

What are IDists suggesting?  If we attribute creation to a designer we can?....lose our current theory....and have no working theory?

You dont get to stand on a soap box and scream intolerance until you have actually done something.  ID is not a theory...ID is just an idea.  Its a pretty interesting idea....but it is just an idea.

If ID established clear criteria for IC, or for determining design....besides quoting some rather absurd statistics and claiming a new version of Paley's watchmaker argument.

You have repeated 2 things over and over again Avo....
1.  you keep mentioning that many of the arguments against ID are the same....so?  Unlike the arguments against Evolution....you dont actually have a response
2.  You keep mentioning the atheistic nature of Evolutionary Theory....why?  you said yourself that it doesnt matter....so why mention it?

You need to realize that most of these arguments against ID are not attacking the "finer" points of ID....they are attacking the entire concept of ID.  They need to be addressed....not dismissed because you have heard them too many times.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,23:37   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 09 2006,20:51)
Quote
glaikit numpty


??

ok, i gotta call this one in.

alleviate my ignorance, please.

Welcome back STJ.

Ref:Glaikit numpty.
Both glaikit and numpty are words used to describe an idiot.
Numpty is in widespread use in the UK.
Glaikit is usually only heard in Scotland.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numpty


http://stooryduster.co.uk/pages04/glaikit.htm

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,05:13   

Quote
No, what I meant is that Behe and Dembski and no doubt others are looking into how to realistically detect design and how.
What leads you to think that? I see absolutely no evidence of this.
Quote
But I don't think anyone, including Behe, thinks we should stop trying to understand these systems, and even if we think they were designed, does not mean we will not try to figure out how.
But that's the problem with Behe's thesis. It rests on there being no way for these systems to have come about naturally. So what kind of research program has any IDer proposed to figure out a mechanism by which something happened supernaturally? Also, I find it telling that you seem uninterested in the abundant evidence presented that progress is being made - plausible, researchable evolutionary hypotheses are being offered - toward each and every system Behe has held up as "irreducibly complex".
Quote
I do not think we have to know everything about everything to prove Behe correct.
No indeed. But it's Behe's contention now that we have to know everything about everything to prove him wrong. I'm not making this up. As I read Darwin's Black Box, I understood him to be saying "here's a bunch of systems for which no plausible evolutionary scenario can possibly account". OK. But then when plausible scenarios are suggested for every one of his "impossible-to-evolve" systems, he moves the goalposts. Now he insists that until "Darwinists" have the exact, mutation-by-mutation account of the evolutionary history of a so-called "IC" system, then he's unrefuted! (He wrote that on "IDtheFuture" - but, unfortunately, IDtheFuture seems to have erased its past, so I can't provide the link). By that logic, until we have a day by day, centimeter by centimeter account of where the Indian subcontinent was in its trip from Africa to Asia, we should withhold judgment on continental drift.
Quote
Quote
[Re: Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is"]
Is it a book? Isn't he ancient?
He died in 2004 at age 100. But believe me, there's plenty in that book - written for the layman and published in 2001 - that you need to learn if you want anyone to take your opinions on evolution seriously.

Re: Denton Then vs. Denton Now. All of your dancing around the issue fails to change the stark fact. His first book - widely cited as inspiration by IDists Johnson, Behe, and others - was all about evidence against common descent. There is nothing left of that argument that he has not tacitly admitted to be refuted. You'll notice he is no longer among the Discovery Institute's "Fellows". I think that, in their creepily Soviet style of information management,they have largely purged the record of their falling out with him.

Which brings me to my last point. Frankly, if Behe or any "ID theorist" wants a shred of credibility outside the circle of already committed true believers, he's going to have to distance himself from the Disco Inst.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,06:56   

Flint, et al,

Quote

Is there such a person? I think there was an ARN thread some while back where the ID proponents were asked to name ANYONE who was familiar with evolutionary theory, had no religious convictions against it, but still denied the basic principles. I don't think anyone could come up with a single person.

Ultimately, this is because the ONLY reason anyone rejects ANY explanation of anything, is because they find some other explanation more appealing. Since evolution is based on evidence, and has been thoroughly vetted by tens of thousands of professionals for 150 years, rejection implies some other explanation whose appeal is beyond question. Only religion qualifies.


The problem is, this argument can easily be turned around. And it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is. You make the very good point that personal preference is a very strong, if not the strongest, cause for people to believe what they do. But if you think only the other side has that problem but not your own, then you may not have looked honestly.  

It strikes me as just as true that those who cannot see any problem with Darwinism, or who are scandalized at the thought of intelligent design, are "unable to overcome" their bias.

Let me repeat: to simply insist there are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism seems like a form of fundamentalist thinking, which is to say, completely unable to see another point of view.

And as I've mentioned and as so many other ID people have mentioned, we could, and often did, accept Darwinian evolution. Many people did, many authors including agnostics like Richard Milton. Behe himself always did, and when he read Denton's book it opened his eyes. But he and Ken Miller believe in the same God and go to the same pope to relieve their time in purgatory.

Since plenty of devout people accept Darwinian evolution, perhaps religion isn't the sole problem. Perhaps we are actually swayed by what appears to our no doubt deluded and low mental faculties as counterevidence.

I'd like to actually ask the people here a question. I guess it is a somewhat personal question. It seems to me that we have a pretty simple logical algorithm before us. At least two people here have admitted they think there is a God and presumably some others are agnostic. If there isn't one, we are done with the line of questioning. We can assign a 50/50 probability just for fun. But if there is a God, then presumably this God has something to do with causation of this universe, probably s/he would have something to do with the Big Bang, for example. So if our reality includes a God, then it is naturally possible that there are clues or evidence of that.

It seems very hard to find fault with that logic. So the ID position is that we can legitimately search for, and indeed feel we are hot on the trail of, evidence of the fundamental intelligence that underlies this universe.

If I understand the position taken here, it is that if there is a God, the universe will nonetheless look indistinguishable in every way from one without a God. Now, that may be true, but it hardly seems the most likely. Why then, such strong feelings about those who have taken a different leg of the algorithm?

My personal question is this: What does it mean to you if there is not only a God, but one who took some hand in evolution? If that is disappointing, why?
*************
Guthrie,

Your post is, as usual, logical. I'm not going to argue. You ask about proof of God, but I don't think you mean it. I have said that existence itself needs explaining. Something fundamentally different is required. If science does find some indirect proof, such as finding out something surprising about material reality, it would strengthen that thing called faith. That would be a bare outline. The only interesting way to know about God is subjectively, which only a few people are interested in.

Quote
If you wish to not be taken as a laughing stock, please explain why you still think that Behe et al are correct, i.e. explain how Miller etc were wrong in their critique of Behe.


Sure, that seems useful. I'll probably have to print up the Miller paper and the critiques and go through it. I'm also interested in finding out if there are good answers to Denton's book, by which I mean the first one.
*****************
Henry,

Quote
Personally, I don't see how any cosmic purpose (if there is one) could depend on the biological details of how our bodies are constructed. (Or for that matter, at what location in the universe we appeared.)

It appears from the vantage of biology that the purpose is to get different working bodies. I don't suppose the exact details are vital. Look at our cars, we just like variety and  find it aesthetically pleasing to design new ones. The bit about our location in the universe bugs me. I haven't seen the movie or book, but I smell a rat. They might be right our location satisfies certain requirements, but it seems pretty horrifying if we are the only living planet out of billions of galaxies and I suspect some people want to think that way.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:02   

I am enjoying your posts here, Avocationist.

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:14   

Avocationist,

I've quickly read through most of your posts here, and the summary of your position seems to be:
- you don't know enough mathematics to understand Dembski's work on design inference, or the refutations there-of;
- you don't understand enough molecular biology to be able to assess the validity of Behe's idea of irreducible, or the critiques there-of;
- you haven't read, nor have any intention of reading, any of Mayr's (or any of the other major figures in the modern synthesis' [<-not quite sure if I got the placement of that apostrophe correct]) writing on evolutionary theory.

And yet you are firmly convinced that the IDiots are right, and the evolutionary biologists are wrong?

Quote
I think that for lack of greater knowledge, evolutionary theory has placed all its eggs in the mutation basket.


Have you actually ever compared any DNA sequences? Have you looked at an alignment of the human, chimpanzee, and mouse GAPDH genes, for example? If not, then I think that statement tells me everything I need to know about you.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:18   

Quote
My personal question is this: What does it mean to you if there is not only a God, but one who took some hand in evolution? If that is disappointing, why?


I'll bite:  It's irrelevant to me.  It doesn't mean anything.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:19   

Avocationist-

Quote
it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is.


Im sorry, but what arguments are you referring to?  Maybe the people on this board could explain the responses to you.

If you havent noticed, scientists, in general, are very prompt with responses to criticism.  I know you think that most biologists are blindly following evolution, but this is hardly the case.  So I would invite your criticism of Evolutionary Theory.

Quote
But if there is a God, then presumably this God has something to do with causation of this universe, probably s/he would have something to do with the Big Bang, for example. So if our reality includes a God, then it is naturally possible that there are clues or evidence of that.


Im sorry, but there are some massive flaws with your logic.  You believe that their is evidence of God, which is a perfectly sane assumption, but it has serious theological implications.

If God exists, and he wants to leave evidence of his existence that is irrefutable, then why doesn't he simply appear?  Do you believe that the people who do discover the proof of God are more entitled than the people who previously had to work off of blind faith?  I cannot say that I would completely disagree with the idea of God making the knowledge of his existence absolute; but to date, I dont believe he has done that and I dont really know why he would suddenly change his mind.

You may be suggesting, however, that God had no choice but to leave his 'signature' upon reality.  If this is the case, then your conception of God is fairly limited.  You believe in a God that could create all reality, but who couldn't hide his fingerprints from his creation?

Avocationist, have you ever figured out if ID is a conflicting theory to Evolution?  I have yet to see you make this claim, so Im still curious as to your opinion.  If you do believe that ID is an alternative theory, in what ways does it deviate from our current theory of Evolution?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:33   

Re "It appears from the vantage of biology that the purpose is to get different working bodies."

That appears to be a result.

Re "The bit about our location in the universe bugs me. I haven't seen the movie or book, but I smell a rat"

What movie / book is that? I don't know of any reason to think this galaxy to be unique compared to however many galaxies are out there (or even to just the ones we know about).

Henry

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:42   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,12:56)
My personal question is this: What does it mean to you if there is not only a God, but one who took some hand in evolution? If that is disappointing, why?

Yeah, I'll bite too.

If there is a God, and he/she has the power to create a universe, and yet he/she chooses to make the evidence of his/her abilities so vague that it is, for all intents and purposes, unrecognisable ... well ... why?

Taking it one step further, if this God controlled evolution, and Homo sapiens as it exists today was the intended end point of this process, would you then suggest that this God cared about us? If so, then I would conclude that either this God is powerless to do anything about the multitude of atrocities that occur every day on this planet, or that he/she is actively refraining from doing anything about them.

If I thought any of this was true, I'd suggest that maybe this God wasn't really worthy of the respect some people show him/her.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:43   

Re "If you do believe that ID is an alternative theory, in what ways does it deviate from our current theory of Evolution?"

I sometimes wonder about that as well. It does seem to depend on which ID supporter one talks to. Near as I can tell, usng just the basic notion that life was in some way deliberately engineered, I don't see that it necessarily contradicts the conclusions of the current theory - that would require adding some details to the model. But if it doesn't contradict anything in, or add anything to, current theory, what's the point of it?

Henry

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,07:47   

Quote
The problem is, this argument can easily be turned around. And it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is. You make the very good point that personal preference is a very strong, if not the strongest, cause for people to believe what they do. But if you think only the other side has that problem but not your own, then you may not have looked honestly.  

It strikes me as just as true that those who cannot see any problem with Darwinism, or who are scandalized at the thought of intelligent design, are "unable to overcome" their bias.

Let me repeat: to simply insist there are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism seems like a form of fundamentalist thinking, which is to say, completely unable to see another point of view.

The Darwinian explanation is not obvious. If it were, Darwin's discovery and elucidation of it would not have been the momentous event that it was. The "arguments against" are dismissed, not out of "bias" or "fundamentalism", they are dismissed because the time for argumentation is long past. The theory has been relentlessly and rigorously tested, against empirical evidence, for over a hundred years now. In scientific circles, this trumps arguments not so supported.
"There are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism" because 'rationality' includes unbiased examination of evidence in order to come to a conclusion.

Quote
But if there is a God, then presumably this God has something to do with causation of this universe, probably s/he would have something to do with the Big Bang, for example. So if our reality includes a God, then it is naturally possible that there are clues or evidence of that.

Think this through carefully. Can there be evidence for something, if, in principle, there can be none against?

No line of empirical study will ever succeed in "disproving God." And by the same token science cannot prove the existence of God either.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,08:07   

Quote
The problem is, this argument can easily be turned around. And it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is. You make the very good point that personal preference is a very strong, if not the strongest, cause for people to believe what they do. But if you think only the other side has that problem but not your own, then you may not have looked honestly.
Post-modernist anti-intellectualism. Somehow the mere posing of an alternate point of view makes both views equally valid, so you can never know anything, just have opinions. I reject that completely. I have read Mayr, Behe, Dawkins, Denton, etc. etc. and, in light of what I know about biology (which I suspect is considerably more than Avo does) the evo position makes sense, and the creo (or neocreo) does not. What are these alleged very good arguments against "Darawinism"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,08:32   

Re ""There are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism""

At the risk of stating what should be obvious, there's a huge difference between simply doubting something, and otoh claiming that there's specific evidence against it.

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,09:55   

I'm getting behind, Puck, I'll just go thru yours

(Thank you, Sanctum)

Quote
No one is claiming that they are totally seperate spheres....they only seem that way.
That is a wise statement.

Quote
This isnt what kind of prediction we are asking for, and I hope this was more of a joke than an honest answer.
It was not a joke. I don't think animals can evolve into different genii by small mutational steps. And if I'm right, then no doubt that will be discovered as our knowledge of evo devo improves. What kind of predictions do you want? That one's mine by the way.

Quote
.ID is in no way in competition with 'Darwinism'?  If your statement is true...then ID has absolutely no opposition to current Evolutionary Theory.  'Darwinists' already attribute design to "natural selection"....therefore ID is simply reinforcing the current theory.
Yes, it is. ID thinks an active, intentional form of intelligence was involved. ID is unlikely to accept gradualism. What I can't see, tho, is that there is any real difference between ID and theism or deism or even agnosticism. It's just an argument over where and when and how.
You, I think favor the initial conditions idea. The only way it conflicts is that an ID person would think that it might have been frontloaded, but not randomly assembled, that is, DNA or the original life form.
I think the feeling of resistance to ID is about freedom and also consistency. If God interferes at certain points, it really takes the fun out because consistency is lost. We would be in pursuit of an incoherent reality with chunks missing. I think that would make scientists feel trifled with. It is all making sense to me now and I think I have answered my earlier question.

Quote

Im sorry, but what arguments are you referring to?

Well, this is a long project, and probably the right one. I have printed up the Miller-Dembski flagellum exchange, and someone back on pg 2 gave out some links, which I haven't forgotten. I have a list of books, Wells, Milton, Bird, Spetner, Johnson. I also liked the Meyer paper. Of the books, I'd probably like to delve into perhaps the arguments of Spetner if I'm remembering correctly that he goes into the informational aspect, and Denton.

Quote
If God exists, and he wants to leave evidence of his existence that is irrefutable, then why doesn't he simply appear?  Do you believe that the people who do discover the proof of God are more entitled than the people who previously had to work off of blind faith?  I cannot say that I would completely disagree with the idea of God making the knowledge of his existence absolute; but to date, I don't believe he has done that and I dont really know why he would suddenly change his mind.


I hardly know how to respond except to say that the nature of your questions reflect a way of looking at reality that I used to share but no longer do. I can't prove that my way is better but it certainly seems that way. The sensation is one of deeper understanding of the sort that, once seen, cannot be undone.
I do not attribute to God that he "wants" to hide or "wants to appear." I don't think God is filled with guile or engages in any shenanigans to fool people. It would be more accurate to say that God hides in plain sight. Faith is merely a weak form of knowledge. It isn't an end but a means. Faith leads to knowledge, for those who want it to. The reason I think society would be benefited by knowledge of God or spirit is that it would strengthen faith. Entitlement doesn't enter the picture at all. I don't think there is a god who finds people wanting and banishes them. I don't think there is a god who is offended by atheism. I don't think there are people leading spiritual lives and people who do not. Song, dance, and happiness are the highest form of praise to the creator. No one can possibly be guilty for their perception. Anger or impatience are the marks of limited perception, and does not describe infinite being.

Quote
You may be suggesting, however, that God had no choice but to leave his 'signature' upon reality.  If this is the case, then your conception of God is fairly limited.  You believe in a God that could create all reality, but who couldn't hide his fingerprints from his creation?

No, I don't think God can hide from the creation any more than I think God can cease to exist. God is the only reality. There isn't anything else. That is why God hides in plain sight. It is all a matter of perception. Always there, always was, invisible to many, obvious once seen. No one is forced to be aware of God, who is infinitely gentle.

Of course, I might be completely bonkers, barely holding my reality together with strong meds. :0

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:12   

Avocationist,
Why not just seperate your religion from science?

Science should always try to find out how "the world works". The reason we are here is probably better discussed in theology or philosophy.

I assume you can do this in other areas. I doubt you mingle literature and geography, or expect one to live by the standards of the other.

Why not do the same with science and religion?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:16   

If ID isn't religious in nature, why do these discussions invariably delve into ontology?  And, I might add, it seems that the ID proponents are always the first ones to bring it up.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,10:34   

Quote
And if I'm right, then no doubt that will be discovered as our knowledge of evo devo improves
Well, no. "if I'm right, then one day I'll be proved right" doesn't really count as a prediction, in the scientific sense. A scientific prediction would be something like this:

Fifty years ago, we knew that DNA was the genetic material, but no particular sequences were known. It was predicted (by "Darwinists", I guess you'd say) that - if and when DNA could be sequenced - it would turn out to reflect the nested hierarchy of common descent.

Guess how that turned out?

(By the way: one genus two genera. Oh, you're welcome! No charge.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,13:22   

Quote
It was not a joke. I don't think animals can evolve into different genii by small mutational steps. And if I'm right...


but... you're not. so why persist?

oh, and btw, the plural of genus is genera, genius.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,13:24   

Quote
It was not a joke. I don't think animals can evolve into different genii by small mutational steps. And if I'm right, then no doubt that will be discovered as our knowledge of evo devo improves. What kind of predictions do you want? That one's mine by the way.


Lets imagine for a second that ID is a true alternative to Evolutionary Theory.  ID could predict that totally artificial organisms can not be created.  They could claim that mutations do not occur at all.

It is a completely different thing to say.."I dont think that your idea works...I have no proof...it just doesnt sound feasible."

Quote
If God interferes at certain points, it really takes the fun out because consistency is lost. We would be in pursuit of an incoherent reality with chunks missing. I think that would make scientists feel trifled with. It is all making sense to me now and I think I have answered my earlier question.


Actually you almost got it.  If God interferes all the time...then empirical science is completely unreliable.  God could have tricked us...and things may occur that we could not have predicted.  If things can and will occur all the time whenever God feels like it....then why bother trying to figure out why things occur.  They dont have a reason....it is just God.  Basically, lets revert back to mythological belief systems...since that is ID...a mythological belief in a wholly overactive Theisitic entity.
Unfortunately...in the last couple of centuries...we havent really seen God interfere...maybe he is on vacation?
Let us know when he gets back.

Quote
It would be more accurate to say that God hides in plain sight. Faith is merely a weak form of knowledge. It isn't an end but a means. Faith leads to knowledge, for those who want it to.


Basically you're a pantheist?  If this is the case...have you ever studied hinduism?  It supposedly is more spirtually fulfilling than Christianity, and it has your favorite flavors....only bad news is that the Earth is very, very, very old.

Did you notice something...you said that Faith leads to knowledge.  If I learn something olny after believing in it, then am I not forcing myself to know something?  Isnt it entirely more likely that I have tricked myself into believing something if I must have faith in it first?

Sorry my rationalism offends you, but I honestly think that I can continue to believe in God without having faith in him.  

Let me just sum up your argument though...and tell me if i misunderstood anything.


1.  Science is atheistic in nature
2.  Atheism forces people to be skeptical of God
3.  People who know God exists will be better people
4.  Science should want to do the most good.
5.  Science should say God exists
6.  More People believe in God=More people are Good
7.  Science should now go back and prove He exists.
8.  Total proof of God's existence will......????



Quote
The reason I think society would be benefited by knowledge of God or spirit is that it would strengthen faith.

Actually...it would destroy faith.  If we "know" God exists...then we do not have "faith" in God.  

Unless you are only referring to the extreme misuse of the work "knowledge" in religion?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,16:40   

I thought the term "gradualism" generally referred to the notion that a whole species would typically evolve slowly over a large part of its existence - gradually turning into something else. Otoh, descent with change by incremental small changes is simply a basic principle of the current theory. (Not over the lifetime of the species, though - a successful established species won't change much on the outside - no pressure to make it do so. And it's probably already accumulated most of the little changes that would aid it in the current environment anyway - or at least that's my guess.)

Re "I don't think animals can evolve into different [genera] by small mutational steps."
I don't get why some people think there's less likelihood of a species being a modified descendant of another species, than for it to be the product of a separate abiogenesis event (that being the alternative to being not a descendant of something else). From an engineering perspective, modifying an existing something is way simpler than building something else from scratch.

Not to mention the question of what exactly is supposed to prevent small changes from occasionally adding up to a larger net change.

And also not to mention that if species (or genera) were found to be unrelated by ancestry, that would make the nested hierarchy thing totally inexplicable. Well, unless one presumed the bioengineer(s) would (most of the time at least) develop each new "product" by slightly modifying the form of an existing (or recent former) nearby species.

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,20:58   

Russell,

Quote
But that's the problem with Behe's thesis. It rests on there being no way for these systems to have come about naturally. So what kind of research program has any IDer proposed to figure out a mechanism by which something happened supernaturally?
 Yes, this is a real problem. It reminds me of some things Miller said at the end of his paper. I have tremendous faith in...Reality, though. The Designer is not a cheater, not a hider, and won't ruin the fun.

Quote
Also, I find it telling that you seem uninterested in the abundant evidence presented that progress is being made - plausible, researchable evolutionary hypotheses are being offered - toward each and every system Behe has held up as "irreducibly complex".
SFAIK, that is mostly overblown. We'll see.

I even paid $5 more for a used copy of the more recent paperback when I could've gotten a new hardback from 1998, just in case their was some new dope.

Quote
Re: Denton Then vs. Denton Now.  All of your dancing around the issue fails to change the stark fact. His first book - widely cited as inspiration by IDists Johnson, Behe, and others - was all about evidence against common descent. There is nothing left of that argument that he has not tacitly admitted to be refuted. You'll notice he is no longer among the Discovery Institute's "Fellows".  I think that, in their creepily Soviet style of information management,they have largely purged the record of their falling out with him.
 
I guess I am just not convinced and you don't seem to have read or understood my post. The arguments he made were against Darwinist gradualism because there seems to be  arguments that sway such minds as mine and his. It does not really speak to how the life forms did get here, and I really never envisioned the kind of special creation that involves each species being made in God's laboratory and carefully kept alive in an intensive care unit until safely transported out of God's mobile lab (I think he would need a mobile lab so he could go to each continent). I always thought that the genes were modified wholesale from living creatures in some way. It may very well be that a fundamentalist like Johnson has a different hope in mind when they read a Denton-type book, so he might have gotten disappointed. As to others, we all have tons of left over baggage from Biblical and Christian worldview. I think Denton's thought has progressed nicely and I would really like to find out what he has to say himself (I did a search but I'm crappy at it) about how his thinking has altered. But anyway, he now thinks life unfolded according to laws, and why not, and he thinks in terms of an entire universe of laws that support life. With this I am in total agreement.
I had no idea that he used to be a fellow and isn't anymore and I would like to find out more about that. But I would like to know where he admits that all his arguments have been refuted. Perhaps I'll see if he can be contacted.

Quote
Post-modernist anti-intellectualism. Somehow the mere posing of an alternate point of view makes both views equally valid, so you can never know anything, just have opinions. I reject that completely.
So do I. Down with postmodernism!

Quote
Well, no. "if I'm right, then one day I'll be proved right" doesn't really count as a prediction, in the scientific sense.
C'mon, now. What I said was that I believe based on the nonsense I've been reading that there are limits to genetic change in a species, and that as we are delving deeper into genetics and evo devo, we'll find those locked gates. And I wait faithfully to be vindicated. Leaving the work to others, of course.

Henry,

The movie is The Priveleged Planet, I think. I thought you were referring to it re our position in the cosmos (they say we've got a great view).

Grego,

Quote
If there is a God, and he/she has the power to create a universe, and yet he/she chooses to make the evidence of his/her abilities so vague that it is, for all intents and purposes, unrecognisable ... well ... why?
It has to do with perception. In a way, I'm the ultimate evolutionist. From my viewpoint, people generally have childish, which is to say simple, unexamined and rather cartoonish notions of God and self. The ideas lack depth and therefore are of little worth to the problem of how to live. God is what God is and it is the human being who must grow in awareness, not demand that God enter our world as a "toon." I think that the whole purpose of existence is evolution, not merely of life forms, but of consciousness, awareness, understanding. You say God is hiding, but I see God in everything. But I wasn't always like this - it took years of deep, penetrating logical thought.

Quote
Taking it one step further, if this God controlled evolution, and Homo sapiens as it exists today was the intended end point of this process, would you then suggest that this God cared about us?If so, then I would conclude that either this God is powerless to do anything about the multitude of atrocities that occur every day on this planet, or that he/she is actively refraining from doing anything about them.

You see, such questions are petulant. They blame God when it is we ourselves who cause the majority of the misery. It elevates God to some distant, imaginary parental figure. It would do no good for God to interfere and MAKE us be good, or blow his whistle like a teacher on the playground - stopping the meanies before they hurt anyone.
This would be an eternity of policework of primitive and undeveloped beings - us. Instead, we will evolve until by learning from our mistakes we have finally internalized the good and have a true conscience.

God is wild, far from tame, but never uses force. He will not force us to be good.  
Quote
I'd suggest that maybe this God wasn't really worthy of the respect some people show him/her.

Yeah, that's why I preach too much. I'm kinda tired of the way God gets slandered by (some) religion and made into a petty and egotistical tyrant. It's all lies.

Henry,
Quote
Near as I can tell, usng just the basic notion that life was in some way deliberately engineered, I don't see that it necessarily contradicts the conclusions of the current theory
 I'm thinking that is pretty much right. But as to the current theory, if things were deliberately engineered then we would rely a little less on random oportunism and seek out more the underlying laws or processes that brought that engineering to fruition.

CJ,

Quote
Think this through carefully. Can there be evidence for something, if, in principle, there can be none against?
But you slightly altered the topic. I wasn't arguing for the existence of God, I said that if there is one, there should be clues lying around.

Stephen,

Quote
Science should always try to find out how "the world works".
 Of course. God isn't separate from the world, though.

Improvius,

Quote
If ID isn't religious in nature, why do these discussions invariably delve into ontology?.
It's all my fault and I admit it.

Puck,

Quote
ID could predict that totally artificial organisms can not be created.
Eh? What's that about?

Quote
It is a completely different thing to say.."I dont think that your idea works...I have no proof...it just doesnt sound feasible."
 Yes, I do need to get to that. Right now, I'm worried about my hero, Denton. I was planning on submitting his name to the queen for knighthood.

Quote
If God interferes all the time...then empirical science is completely unreliable.
I sympathize and it cannot work that way -- at the same time remember Grego's post above and he is mad that God doesn't interfere?

Quote
Unfortunately...in the last couple of centuries...we havent really seen God interfere...maybe he is on vacation?
I hope Jehovah is on a permanent vacation. I'm convinced he's an imposter. I think he was some kind of channeled guy.

Quote
Basically you're a pantheist?  If this is the case...have you ever studied hinduism?  It supposedly is more spirtually fulfilling than Christianity, and it has your favorite flavors....only bad news is that the Earth is very, very, very old.
Basically, I'm a religion of one. I thought I was a pantheist for a while, until someone informed me I was a panentheist.(God is immanent and transcendent) I struggle between the two...Someone used the word monist on a forum and I looked it up and sure enough, that's me. So, yeah, I've looked into Advaita, which is the real heart of Hinduism. I have tremendous respect for Hinduism, but I don't know why you think the age of the earth is a problem. They like to throw around really big numbers. 15 billion years is just one breath of Brahma. And they said there are 8 million life forms, and I respect them for that. They're in the ballpark a couple of thousand years ago.

 
Quote
Did you notice something...you said that Faith leads to knowledge.  If I learn something only after believing in it, then am I not forcing myself to know something?  Isnt it entirely more likely that I have tricked myself into believing something if I must have faith in it first?
I'm afraid I didn't follow this. Ah, you mistrust faith - very good. Emotions are highly suspect and we should rid ourselves of most of them. Everything you say makes perfect sense from your perspective.

Of course your rationalism doesn't offend me, and I am surprised you say you believe without faith. But then, you never answered my querry about your logical proofs of God.

Your summaton stinks. Hope you weren't too serious.

Quote
Actually...it would destroy faith.  If we "know" God exists...then we do not have "faith" in God.
And a glorious destruction it would be. Think of how the word faith and trust overlap, even being used interchangeably in Russian. If you have faith in your buddy in a dangerous situation it's because you know you can count on him because you've observed his character before. I don't mean book knowledge, theoretical knowledge - I'm talking about the personal. Faith is an intuition of God based on the truth within, which is where such things are sensed.

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,21:18   

<snort!>

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,01:29   

Quote
And they said there are 8 million life forms, and I respect them for that. They're in the ballpark a couple of thousand years ago.


what ballpark was that?  that ballpark would be so small you could hit a homerun with a drinking straw.

you are one whacky dude.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,06:20   

Russell:
Quote
Also, I find it telling that you seem uninterested in the abundant evidence presented that progress is being made - plausible, researchable evolutionary hypotheses are being offered - toward each and every system Behe has held up as "irreducibly complex".
Avo:
Quote
SFAIK, that is mostly overblown. We'll see.
Well, now. "SFAIK" is pretty much the key question. How much effort have you put into finding out? And how well equipped are you to judge what you read? You display some very fundamental misunderstandings of basic biology (e.g. the difference between a virus and a bacterium, but I'll get to that in another post). Have you looked over the references presented at the Dover trial? Have you read Matt Inlay's summary of evolution of immunity? Or have you just accepted Behe's contention that there's a total vacuum of information there? Because, after all, if Behe says so, that makes it exactly as credible as anyone who says otherwise. Which brings me to...
Russell:
Quote
Post-modernist anti-intellectualism. Somehow the mere posing of an alternate point of view makes both views equally valid, so you can never know anything, just have opinions. I reject that completely.

Avo:
Quote
So do I. Down with postmodernism!
No, you don't. When you say such and such nonsense is good enough to convince Denton and yourself (and, let's face it, you're taking Denton's word for it), that elevates that nonsense to the same status of credibility as millions of person-hours of intensive research - call it what you want, but that's just postmodernist anti-intellectualism.

You continue to spill words on the subject, and insist that somehow I'm not reading them or not understanding them, but you haven't contradicted my extremely simple and concise observation: Denton's first book was all about "debunking" common descent. His "equidistance" genetic argument is posed in direct opposition to it. Not just to "gradualism" - a term I think you're a little fuzzy on - but to common descent. Genetic distance does not speak to the rate or pace of change, it speaks to the number of steps between organism A and organism B. Now, I have to admit I've only scanned his second book, because from my scan and the reviews I read, it looked like a thorough waste of time. But I gathered that he dropped that argument altogether. Perhaps you can set me straight: does "equidistance", or any other quibble with common descent - play any role at all in his second book? You call that "Denton's thought progressing nicely". I call it a crackpot abandoning a 150 year old idea that he championed 15 years ago, but attempting to retain his iconoclast hero status with less obviously wrong - because less substantial - mumbo-jumbo.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,07:49   

Avo:
Quote
I promise I'm not. I know that you are studying single-celled organisms, and that they do mutate a bit. But in what way is your research affected by descent with modification? Do you know what previous species of bacteria your bacteria evolved from? How would that matter as compared to how your bacteria behave right now?
I'm not studying single celled organisms. I'm studying the interaction of multicellular, vertebrate animals with (noncellular) viral pathogens. Our working theory is that both the virus and its host evolve. Do you doubt that? Do you think the fundamental mechanisms by which the two evolve are different? Do you think that "random mutation and natural selection" accounts for viral evolution, but that some fundamentally different mechanism is required for host evolution? Or do you think there's some intelligence we can't detect driving the changes that sure look like they're due to random mutation and natural selection in the virus?

With respect to descent with modification: it is our working theory that viruses, just like everything else in biology, evolved through descent with modification. Nobody has found any reason, as per Occam, that "random mutation and natural selection" are not necessary and sufficient to account for the divergence within family trees of viruses. If we didn't believe viruses were related to one another via descent with modification, we would organize our thinking differently. E.g., measles virus is clearly closely related to respiratory syncytial virus. Any novel function discovered in measles virus immediately sends us scurrying to see if the homologous structures and functions might be found in RSV. If we were similarly sent scurrying by every new function found in herpes virus or HIV, viruses bearing little if any family resemblance to RSV, we would be wasting a lot of time and resources.
Avo:
Quote
Your predictions may be based on learning more about how organisms mutate, but I don't see how your research is affected by the grand scheme of evoluton.
Well, that's why evolution is called the central organizing principle of biology. Biology makes a lot more sense, and so is a lot easier to learn, if you can see overarching principles at work. You don't have to learn different fundamental mechanisms for how viruses change and adapt, then learn a completely different set of mechanisms for how bacteria do, then yet another for fish, yet another for humans. And a very large fraction of all of biology depends on how organisms change and adapt.
Avo:
Quote
I know that you consider mutations the driving force of evolution, and that I don't..
Well, no. I consider the combination of mutations (and that includes all of those unpredictable changes in the genome: point mutations, deletions, duplications, transpositions...) and natural selection the driving force. Neither one alone gets you very far. But please, pray tell, what do you consider the driving force of evolution? Disembodied intelligence? Fascinating! Tell us how that works. Or, more to the point, tell us what evidence you have.
Avo:
Quote
As for being all you have, I really think that if it is bacteria you are studying, and their effects upon us, then mutation and selection are all you need
So you think there are fundamentally different forces at work? Granted, there are differences: most animals rely exclusively on sexual reproduction, and having a diploid genome introduces important technical differences, etc., but I don't see any evidence for forces that don't still fall under the umbrella of "mutation and selection". I guess it gets down to that "grand scheme" thing again. Biologists see both the unity of life and the diversity of life covered by that central organizing principle of biology: evolution.
Russell:
Quote
If you're interested in biology or science, why oh why are you reading what some lawyer has to say about it? There really is no shortage of biology books written by actual biologists.

Avo:
Quote
Oh, but that isn't to learn about biology. His book is kind of an eye-opener. It just gives a window into the thoughts and problems as expressed by category by the many experts in their fields.
Huh? I still don't get it. You read a creationist lawyer, with an obvious religious axe to gring, in order to get a window into current topics in... what? Biology, no? Do you think lawyers in general are pretty reliable, honest brokers of information? You still believe that Bird's book is, let me make sure I get this right, "surely the most documented book ever written"? Are you familiar with the art of "quote-mining"?
Avo:
Quote
I'm also interested in where you said some vaccines just make it worse. Are those vaccines the public never hears about?
The public can find tons of documentation of laboratory and clinical trials that didn't work out too well in the medical literature. It's not secret. It is, however, pretty boring. Though you seem to think designing a successful vaccine is easier than falling off a log (heck, they could do it 200 years ago, before Darwin even, right? Heck!, maybe the theory of evolution has actually impeded vaccine research!;), these days the news of a successful vaccine candidate is much more newsworthy than news of an unsuccessful one.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,17:53   

Quote
They like to throw around really big numbers. 15 billion years is just one breath of Brahma. And they said there are 8 million life forms, and I respect them for that. They're in the ballpark a couple of thousand years ago.


Hmmm...Ive always heard the word Trillion being tossed around when talking about Hindu creationism

Quote
ID could predict that totally artificial organisms can not be created.


I was just trying to give you examples or actual predictions...the problem is that if ID could make a prediction that would prove Evolutionary Theory wrong....ummm...they would have already done it.

Quote
you never answered my querry about your logical proofs of God.


I wasnt discussing my logical proofs of God...I was discussing logical proofs of God....Start from Aquinas...and go forward in philosophical history.

Quote
If you have faith in your buddy in a dangerous situation it's because you know you can count on him because you've observed his character before.


If you are referring to the word "faith" then you are correct.  Faith, based on empirical information, is a great thing.
Blind faith, or religious faith, is completely different.  If God suddenly appeared....set the record straight...and explained that the best religion was mormanism....then you wouldnt have faith based on empirical data, you wouldnt have blind faith....you would have absolute truth.  That would destroy faith...faith only exists when their is a possibility that you could be wrong.  I do not have "faith" in math.  I have "faith" in sub-atomic theory.  If you know that God exists...you must remove faith.

Do you know what the difference is between a Theist and an Atheist is?  
An Atheist believes in randomness and chance.  
A Theist believes that God probably has some control over chance

Both are rational views....but given this rather minor difference of opinion...how is ID different from Theistic Evolution?

The Difference is that Theistic evolution believes that for all intensive purposes God=random chance.  since you cannot know the nature of God...his decisions appear random.  ID, well ID is just hogwash.  They can spot design....so can I...but that doesnt really help.  They should carefully analyze the pattern of design...and then make careful observations about the design choices that were made...and attempt to simplify the Designer to an algorithmic process....wait....some people are already doing that...Scientists.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,03:01   

Avo ... hmmm. Just realised it was the name for the "good" god in the game "Fable".

Well avobloke, seems like the people here really went out of their way to provide you with some meaningful data and in a most polite way. Now, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to just say "no evidence" and prove you just waisted everyone's time, or are you going to do the honest thing? I think I know why Lenny treats them the way he does. I am beginning to think that except for the VERY rare occasion (like S. Elliot), that no amount of evidence will ever convince some people. :angry:

Avo, get "The Ancestor's Tale" from Richard Dawkins.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,07:27   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,12:56)
The problem is, this argument can easily be turned around. And it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is. You make the very good point that personal preference is a very strong, if not the strongest, cause for people to believe what they do. But if you think only the other side has that problem but not your own, then you may not have looked honestly.

It strikes me as just as true that those who cannot see any problem with Darwinism, or who are scandalized at the thought of intelligent design, are "unable to overcome" their bias.

Let me repeat: to simply insist there are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism seems like a form of fundamentalist thinking, which is to say, completely unable to see another point of view.

The problem for you is that we aren't discussing "another point of view."

As others have pointed out, you are engaging in Postmodernist thought. The problem with that is that evolution has mountains of evidence that has been independently verified through many different lines of scientific inquiry. ID has philosophical musings.

In essence you are walking outside, looking at a bright, blue, sunny sky and pronouncing that some people (whose god told them that the sky is red) see the sky as red and you agree. When someone points out to you that the sky is indeed blue, that we can make measurements and show that it is blue, you reply, "Well, that's just your opinion. My opinion is better (even though I don't have the requisite knowledge to make that distinction) and you are biased."

Like I said before, it's all rubish.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,08:20   

Actually GCT you are being too harsh

We say that a rock is dead...we say that in the long time that we have been studying rocks...we have never seen one exhibit any signs biological life.  We point to the several examples of life...and say "We understand life, and the rock is not alive."  We cannot actually prove that the rock is not alive, but we just do not have any reason to believe that it is.

He is arguing that a rock could be alive....and that mere absence of evidence does not prove his theory invalid.  As long as his theory is based on solid principle(i.e. the definition for life is questionable at best, and that rocks could simply have very different and very, very long lifestyles) then we should reasonably entertain his idea.

The problem, and a serious one at that, is that it would seem that an open-minded person must be available to the idea that the rock might be alive.  The problem is that science is not open-minded in the traditional sense.  Modern science does not believe anything until sufficient evidence exists to support that idea.  Science might consider for a fleeting moment that a rock could be alive, since nothing totally rules out the possibility; but without evidence to prove that a rock is alive....Science will dismiss the idea.

This is a serious problem for a lot of people.  As Avocationist has stated many times...people believe that Science speaks about truth.  Science does not speak about truth, science speaks about observations.

A scientist might believe that Science is the search for absolute truth, but this would only be his personal belief...

Science is in search of observations and rules based upon observation.  Science does not deal in the realm of truth...since as someone pointed out somewhere else....all of our observations could be flawed...and then so would all of our conclusions.

Religion and Philosophy deal in the realm of Truth and this is why so many people, like Avo, get upset and believe that Science is spreading an Atheistic message.  

A sports announcer is not considered to be spreading an Atheistic message if he never attributes anything in a sporting event to God.  He is simply observing the event and explaining to his best ability why something occured.  He attempts to view statistics and analyze patterns, but he never claims to really know why things happen.  He doesnt know if the Yankees truly are bothered by cold...but he does know that in 54 out of the last 56 games played in weather below 20 degrees....the Yankees have scored more runs than average.  This knowledge and information may help him clean you out at the bookie....but it doesnt actually mean that he knows any Truth...he just has observations.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,08:50   

Very well said, PuckSr.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,08:59   

But what if the rock is only recently deceased? ;)

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,09:40   

The Rock isn't deceased at all - he just makes terrible movies.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,09:44   

I may be too harsh, but I want to point out the fact that Avo is ultimately rejecting not just biology, but other fields of science as well, that all independently confirm evolution.  In lieu of evolution, Avo gives us his personal incredulity and his religious sensibilities.  He tries to have his cake and eat it too.  He wants to claim that ID is all about science, yet can't separate the discussion from god.  Like I said before, it's rubbish.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,10:06   

Not that Rock... :rolleyes:

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,19:39   

I have been busy but I finished going through the Flagellum Unspun and Spinning Just Fine.

I don't have time tonight to pick up where I left off, but
the remarks here have gotten rather out of hand. Someone has said that I have been presented with all sorts of evidence. That is odd, as I don't think we have even started that part of the discussion yet. We have been discussing ID as it relates to philosophy, mostly.

When we discuss Denton's book, we might go through evidence. I have not gotten a clear idea why evolution theory is necessary to medical research. Nothing convincing.

What evidence, Renier, have I ignored? Books, links and so forth have been mentioned, and as Russell said a few days ago, "take a month, we'll be here."

I am not engaging in postmodernist thought. Someone made a remark about the behavior of IDists, and I pointed out that it cuts both ways. IDists consistently find the Darwinists impervious to evidence and rational argument, and to be motivated by dogmatic loyalty. Meanwhile Darwinists are saying more or less the same or similar things about ID. The postmodernist idea that there is no objective truth has nothing to do with these remarks, which were observations of human psychology. Furthermore, please be aware that I consider most of them to fall under the category of projection. In other words, when accusations are thrown around, they are either true, (which is often) or they are projections of one's own inner state, which is also very often. To see that two sides at an impasse are both engaging in the same human foibles has nothing to do with postmodernism.

I do not consider that "science is spreading atheism." Science itself is pure of intent. I consider that some scientists, and the field of evolutionary biology is overrepresented, are infusing their observations with a lot of materialist philosophy.

Quote
I may be too harsh, but I want to point out the fact that Avo is ultimately rejecting not just biology, but other fields of science as well, that all independently confirm evolution.
What other fields?

Quote
Avo gives us his personal incredulity and his religious sensibilities.
Now here is something for you folks to see. Your approach is one of skepticism, proudly so. And yet in this one area, the one which naturally and in most people gives rise to a healthy skepticism - that random chance has produced breathtaking complexity, consistently bringing about higher order without  any purpose or intent - in this one area you repeatedly attempt to shame nonbelievers and one another by this vacuous appeal to a discordant, hypnotizing notion thought up by Dawkins. That of personal incredulity. Of course I have personal incredulity, and lots of it. And the whole approach of modern science generally is to be skeptical and nonsuperstitious. I tell you, if the evidence is so damned good, why the need to remind people not to descend into personal incredulity? This is a group-powered shaming device and nothing more. Is this not a roundabout way of scorning those who lack faith? What does it mean to have blind faith in ancient, Biblical miracles of long ago and isn't it personal incredulity that makes many modern people doubt them? Don't you know this sort of thing is what causes the ID people to say Darwinism is in many ways similar to faith? And what makes you so sure you can escape human nature? What makes you so sure that having jettisoned religion that whatever it is in human nature that gives rise to the religious impulse won't find other avenues for its expression? And if you aren't capable of this level of self-inquiry and humans-in-groups inquiry, then you aren't sophisticated enough for philosophical endeavor, and are indeed naive. And if you think this is postmodernism, think again.

Quote
He wants to claim that ID is all about science, yet can't separate the discussion from god.
It can be separated from God but very often the topic comes up and I like to address it.
Miller believes God set up the initial conditions and knew the end result; he thinks God didn't have to interfere to get IC systems but that he does intervene on the quantum level or in some other very subtle ways, and he thinks that God has intervened miraculously in human affairs. For Miller, then, there can be no evolution without God.

Science is not the search for absolute truth, science is the search for what is so.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,20:15   

Before this entire conversation devolves

Quote
I have not gotten a clear idea why evolution theory is necessary to medical research. Nothing convincing.


This entire line of reasoning is relatively subjective.  You are right...if we kept our current knowledge of medical science, and abandoned Evolution...we probably wouldnt see the medical community completely evaporate.

Im going to get back to this...but first we need to address something else.

ID simpy claims that we are designed.  The "Designer" could be completely mundane and natural....such as natural selection...or the Designer could be a heavily involved Theistic God.  ID does *not* make any claim about the Designer.  ID could easily co-exist with Evolution....but...that is not what you are referring to most of the time.  

Avo, you firmly place yourself in the belief that natural selection is not a sufficient enough mechanism for design.  You also claim that mutation is not sufficient enough to cause massive changes over long periods of time.

If those are not your beliefs...then please be more specific...since everyone including you knows that ID is incredibly vague.

Mutation is incredibly significant to several fields of science.  If you would like examples of fields that require the concept of random genetic mutation....we can compile a list

Natural Selection is probably less important to the study of biology.  Why?  Because most scientists tend to work in controlled environments....natural selection doesnt really apply in botany....botanists do most of the selecting.  This is very misleading though....because the principle of selection is still applied.  It would be fairly simple for anyone who has ever dealt with mating animals or plants to understand the concept of selection...and in particular the effects of natural selection.  In other words...we could probably live without natural selection in several fields....unfortunately the work done in most fields reinforces the concept of natural selection.

Alright...so now that we have broken down Evolution to the actual parts you disagree with....can you understand why the Theory of Evolution is important to many fields of study?

The "History of all living organisms and how they came to be" is not important to most people in Medicine...but several of the "chunks" of the theory are independently important to most fields.

As for all of that ancient stuff...about dinosaurs and their friends....we probably dont need that for modern medicine....but for that matter we probably dont need to know most things about ancient history...or anything from the past...it is simply human to want to understand where things came from and how they got here.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,20:19   

Quote
IDists consistently find the Darwinists impervious to evidence and rational argument, and to be motivated by dogmatic loyalty


the big difference is, in the case of ID supporters, it is just projection.

they haven't presented any evidence yet, nor even a coherent testable hypothesis.

go ask Dembski, Nelson, etc.

so any arguments made that evolutionary biologists are "ignoring" evidence are defacto just projections by wishful thinking, but rather mentally disturbed, ID supporters.

have you decided which you are yet?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,20:32   

Avo-

Let me ask you a question about skepticism.....

If you are just now reading the literature on ID....should you not be an ID supporter?  I dont mind the skepticism about Evolution....but shouldnt you grant an equal amount of skepticism to ID and its proponents?

This just strikes me as odd.  When we first began this conversation you had limited experience with a very short list of ID books....yet you were convinced of the correctness of ID.

Its just seems to me that you threw your support behind ID in some form of a Pascal wager.  You believe that if ID is correct...then you will be keeping your God happy.  In all honesty you should doubt both "opinions" until presented with valid proof of one or both.  Judging by your responses...and the statements you have made...I dont really think you have come across the proof of ID yet.  I ask you to revert back and remain skeptical until you have more information.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,00:34   

Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 13 2006,15:40)
The Rock isn't deceased at all - he just makes terrible movies.

ROFL!
I nearly spat my wine out when I read that!

The power of soundbites is enormous.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,01:36   

Hmmm. I can see I wasted quite a bit of effort on my replies yesterday. Oh well. Have a nice life, Avo.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,04:29   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 14 2006,01:39)
I am not engaging in postmodernist thought. Someone made a remark about the behavior of IDists, and I pointed out that it cuts both ways. IDists consistently find the Darwinists impervious to evidence and rational argument, and to be motivated by dogmatic loyalty.

No, it does NOT cut both ways. When the IDists actually present evidence (any evidence) then there might be a discussion. Until then it will remain one sided, because ideas without evidence get no play.
Quote
I do not consider that "science is spreading atheism." Science itself is pure of intent. I consider that some scientists, and the field of evolutionary biology is overrepresented, are infusing their observations with a lot of materialist philosophy.

Who cares what the personal philosophies of scientists are, so long as those philosophies don't interfere with their work? So Dawkins is atheist, so what? Does it interfere with his work? No. So, Dembski is Christian, does that interfere with his work? Yes, it does, and that's why we have a problem.
Quote
What other fields?

Paleontology, geology, medicine...
Quote
Now here is something for you folks to see. Your approach is one of skepticism, proudly so. And yet in this one area, the one which naturally and in most people gives rise to a healthy skepticism - that random chance has produced breathtaking complexity, consistently bringing about higher order without any purpose or intent - in this one area you repeatedly attempt to shame nonbelievers and one another by this vacuous appeal to a discordant, hypnotizing notion thought up by Dawkins. That of personal incredulity. Of course I have personal incredulity, and lots of it. And the whole approach of modern science generally is to be skeptical and nonsuperstitious. I tell you, if the evidence is so damned good, why the need to remind people not to descend into personal incredulity? This is a group-powered shaming device and nothing more. Is this not a roundabout way of scorning those who lack faith? What does it mean to have blind faith in ancient, Biblical miracles of long ago and isn't it personal incredulity that makes many modern people doubt them? Don't you know this sort of thing is what causes the ID people to say Darwinism is in many ways similar to faith? And what makes you so sure you can escape human nature? What makes you so sure that having jettisoned religion that whatever it is in human nature that gives rise to the religious impulse won't find other avenues for its expression? And if you aren't capable of this level of self-inquiry and humans-in-groups inquiry, then you aren't sophisticated enough for philosophical endeavor, and are indeed naive. And if you think this is postmodernism, think again.

Skepticism is not bad, but your argument is. You are acting as if your personal incredulity makes evolution incorrect or at least makes ID worth mention. That is the key difference. ID doesn't become worth mention simply because you are skeptical of evolution.
Quote
It can be separated from God but very often the topic comes up and I like to address it.

Well, stop. If you want to address science, then come up with some science. You haven't yet, but neither has any other IDist.
Quote
Science is not the search for absolute truth, science is the search for what is so.

You forgot the part about where evidence is necessary. You also forgot about the part where we have to be able to actually test and verify that which we are studying. God may exist or may not, but I defy you to come up with a way to figure that out scientifically. Until you can do that, your arguments and all of ID is just a bunch of inane handwaving.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,08:37   

Quote
Of course I have personal incredulity, and lots of it. And the whole approach of modern science generally is to be skeptical and nonsuperstitious. I tell you, if the evidence is so damned good, why the need to remind people not to descend into personal incredulity? This is a group-powered shaming device and nothing more. Is this not a roundabout way of scorning those who lack faith?

The evidence is good. But it seems to invite incredulity for a number of reasons. First and foremost, most people are theists of one stripe or another. The human mind, while capable of the most subtle and sublime contemplations, evolved because it helped our ancestors survive. One of the ways it may have done this is to be wired to attach significance and comprehensibility to otherwise capriciously dangerous nature. Personifying the forces of the universe is deeply seated in the human "soul".

Darwinian evolution, like many radical scientific discoveries before and after it, calls on us to abandon this deeply rooted tendency to assign agency to the manifold attributes of nature, in all their obvious and dazzling complexity. Many people simply won't do it. It's too big, it's otherwise incomprehensible. Somebody has to be in charge, end of story.

Another incredulity-pump is the fact that the evidence for evolution is additive and consilient. It's no good pointing to peppered moths or antibiotic resistance, and saying "there!' as it might be with the cosmic background radiation for the big bang, or sea-floor spreading for plate tectonics. So you have to take multiple lines of evidence from different fields and see the agreement between them to really begin to see the overwhelming weight of the facts pointing to what is still an inherently unobserveable series of ancient events.

Finally, we're simply not equipped to appreciate "deep time." It seems preposterous to most people that, for instance, a 1% improvement in wing efficiency could act as a "force" leading to differential survival among a lineage of proto-birds. This is because they're not looking at the big picture of hundreds of thousands of generations and trillions of individuals. Evolution of the sort that creationists like to call "macro-" usually doesn't happen on timescales that are even approximate to all of human history, which seems like a really long time to most folks. It's not.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,08:19   

Avo-

Hey....I hope we didnt scare you off....I actually found your posts interesting.  In no way was I trying to be derogatory....I just come off like that sometimes.

Come on back to the discussion if you get a chance....I think we can both learn from each other.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,10:30   

Hello all,

No, I wasn't scared off. I thought I'd be back last night but Valentine's Day intervened...cannot neglect my valentine.

Quote
ID simpy claims that we are designed.  The "Designer" could be completely mundane and natural....such as natural selection...or the Designer could be a heavily involved Theistic God.  ID does *not* make any claim about the Designer.  ID could easily co-exist with Evolution....but...that is not what you are referring to most of the time.


The designer could be natural like an alien. But ID is pretty specific that it is a designing INTELLIGENCE, and by that they do mean a conscious and purposeful one.  So that is why ID cannot coexist with evolution as commonly presented. But as I pointed out, evolution defenders like Miller do not really believe that random natural forces can account for life. Not only did God initiate the universe, and not only is there no good abiogenesis theory going (I do not know Miller's opinion on this) but Miller also thinks God influences mutations by acting in a subtle way. I keep harping on this but it's important.

Puck, you mentioned that you think a very intelligent God could have designed this whole shebang and yet left no trace. Please correct me if I'm wrong because another guy said something very similar, and it turns out he was Catholic and I even thought for a while that you were him, until I saw that you are far less caustic.

I think that idea is not logical. If this whole setup here were designed by an incredible intelligence, then how can it possibly mimick something that wasn't? That is like saying that he set it up, but it doesn't really matter if he did, because from what we observe about the functioning of nature, nature could have done it on her own.

Now, if God set up the initial conditions, then how likely is it that we are right and nature could have done it on her own, and how likely is it that we have not yet understood the setup?

Also, if this whole setup was indeed designed, even if only by frontloading of some sort (initial conditions) then there is no other type of reality with which to compare it, and we cannot know what random and undirected natural processes are capable of - THERE BEING NONE.

We are left then where we started - trying to decipher this reality we find ourselves in. And if we cannot see the designing clues, why assume that we never will? We have so recently begun to delve into the quantum world, and determinism or nondeterminism is not a settled question. We still don't know what really makes reality tick. Plus, there is so much we still don't know about how DNA and protein coding got going, embryonic development, and so forth.

But the new line of thought development, which Denton is in on, makes this whole shebang look like a seamless whole - with the material aspect of reality a huge supporting structure that allows the next level, which is life forms, to evolve and exist.

If God is responsible for the Big Bang, and God is responsible for the laws of nature and matter, and God is responsible for setting up the initial conditions, then where is the dividing line after which he "stops interfering."?

I'm not saying I have an opinion on the above - I'm saying the question of God's actions is becoming less applicable to just one aspect of reality, i.e., the assumption that God might be responsible for matter but not for life.

It is worth noting, however, that it might be incongruous for God to set up initial conditions for the less complex part and let the more complex part take care of itself.  

Quote
Avo, you firmly place yourself in the belief that natural selection is not a sufficient enough mechanism for design.  You also claim that mutation is not sufficient enough to cause massive changes over long periods of time.
If those are not your beliefs...then please be more specific...since everyone including you knows that ID is incredibly vague.

Yes, I'd say that is my belief. As to vague, ID in a nutshell is saying that evidence of design exists which is compelling enough to go with that as the supposition, as opposed to not seeing evidence of said design.

Quote
Mutation is incredibly significant to several fields of science.  If you would like examples of fields that require the concept of random genetic mutation....we can compile a list.
 Sure, I'd like the list. But I'm not arguing against mutations or natural selection. Mutations are indeed important to study of infectious organisms. Natural selection is obvious, necessary, and of course sexual selection, too. Nor is there any reason natural selection would prove inadequate if mutations gave it good choices to work upon. (It may be there is an argument against this which I'm not aware of.) So really, what I doubt is that mutations are the main factor driving evolution. Now mutations have been augmented by things like co-option and gene duplication and so on, but I do believe we should lump them together.

Quote
(next post) If you are just now reading the literature on ID....should you not be an ID supporter?  I dont mind the skepticism about Evolution....but shouldnt you grant an equal amount of skepticism to ID and its proponents?
Well, what do you mean, just now? And why a short list of books. I suppose I've read maybe 9 or 10. I also have spent a pretty large amount of time on the internet. As I said, I've read antievolution things when I could find them, but it is only about a year ago, I think, when I found Disvoery Institute on the net and began reading up on the more current debates going on with the actual names we are now familiar with. I never read creationist stuff because of the obvious bias, and basically I just am kinda allergic to smug christianity.

Quote
Its just seems to me that you threw your support behind ID in some form of a Pascal wager.  You believe that if ID is correct...then you will be keeping your God happy.

Oh, Puck! This is dismaying! I have written to this board the most sublime insights into the real nature of God, and you have utterly misunderstood it. How can you even write the above? Pascal's wager is repulsive and not even logical. The person who can come up with such an idea shows himself completely spiritually bereft and it isn't logical either.

Sir Toejam,

I have duly noted your comments, but I don't find them to be ones I can reason with.

Russell,
Quote
Hmmm. I can see I wasted quite a bit of effort on my replies yesterday. Oh well. Have a nice life, Avo.
How so? Because my answer was stupid, or because I didn't answer yet? If it was the former, I need to get better definition from you, because I understand viruses and bacteria mutate in imporant ways, but isn't it also true that many of these pathogens have kept their identity as a species for millions of years? So let me put it another way, perhaps mutation theory is vital to parts of medical research, but not vital to much else. All I'm saying is that in my opinion the power of mutation is limited. And in medicine and biology, what we need to know is how animals are related to each other, and how drugs act on tissue, and how one animal may tolerate a drug whereas another one won't.  So mutating viruses and bacteris are certainly pertinent to vaccine and drug research. What I was getting at was slightly different. I'm saying that we have plenty to do with real-time study of living species, regardless of whether RM + NS is an adequate explanation of how they got here.

Some people think if you don't accept Darwinian evolution, it should mean animals aren't related to each other. This is a special-creation holdover; it's obsolete thinking based on inadequate knowledge.

I really think that frontloading and/or other methods of natural unfolding of life forms in a relational way, and taking the cosmos into account as a whole package, is the wave of the future.

I think I'll cut off this one here for now. I have read through and marked up the Miller-Demski debate, altho I should probably also go thru the later "Irreducible Colmplexity Revisited."  So I'm now prepared to answer Russels' question as to why I didn't think Miller did much to put the flagellum to rest.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,11:22   

Re "All I'm saying is that in my opinion the power of mutation is limited"

Mutations are what keep billions of people from all being clones of each other. ;)

Henry

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:05   

Quote
Hmmm. I can see I wasted quite a bit of effort on my replies yesterday. Oh well. Have a nice life, Avo.
Quote
How so? Because my answer was stupid, or because I didn't answer yet?
If you go over my last few posts, you'll see there are a number of "?'s". I don't think you addressed any of them. If you can't or won't... well, as I said: have a nice life.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:58   

Avo-

Quote
That is like saying that he set it up, but it doesn't really matter if he did, because from what we observe about the functioning of nature, nature could have done it on her own.


Ok....i think you misunderstand...and I see your problem now.
Deism is not claiming that God "made it look" like he was not involved.  The claim is that "it doesnt matter".  To the Deist...or I suppose the Theistic Evolutionist....it is what it is...

They are claiming that God=nature....you tend to get hung up on this.  Let me try and put it into a different context....does God make things fall to the ground?

Gravity makes things fall to the ground...but a Deist would claim that God created gravity...therefore God is responsible for things falling to the ground.  You seem to think that either "God is making things fall to the ground" or "God is not involved with things falling to the ground".  You ignore the 3rd option....God invented a mechanism to do it.  This option does not limit the power of God, nor does it make God any less important.  We routinely use mechanisms instead of being "directly" involved.  If the 'Designer' is a sentient being....then why would he directly do everything?  Unless the 'Designer' is a severly limited intelligent being.

Lets get back to gravity for a second.  It may be very important to you to determine "why" things fall to the ground.  God or nature or something....but to Science it doesnt matter....they just say..."Things fall to the ground...they always fall at the same rate...we are going to name this force gravity and describe it to the best of our ability."  Now...Im sure God would be more than capable of taking care of gravity.....but no physicist really cares...unless he is trying to figure out why large masses are attracted to each other.

Does this analogy help in any way?  

Quote
If this whole setup here were designed by an incredible intelligence, then how can it possibly mimick something that wasn't?


Im sorry....but what?

We only have 1 reality....if you find another one that was created by different means please let me know.  Your saying that we can compare our current reality to one that is either devoid or full of God.  We cannot, therefore this reality doesnt mimick an ID reality...this reality doesnt mimick a naturalism one....this reality is our only point of comparison.

That being said....can you build something that looks undesigned?  Of course you can...you can also do it very carefully.....the only difference between the two is that you built yours with a goal....and the random one had no goal.

You could painstakingly build a pile of rocks....now you might decide to build a perfect pile of rocks....or you might decide to build one that was highly irregular...its your decision.   The only real difference between your pile of rocks and a random pile of rocks is that you had a reason for building yours....even if your reason was whimsy.  Now, if we waited 10,000 years and you only used rocks you picked up, could anyone definitely figure out which pile was designed by Avo? Probably not....they might have some ideas...but they would all be based on the reason for the pile of rocks.  Unless you know the purpose for the design...it is impossible to determine if something is designed.

BTW...excuse my reference to Pascal...I was not implying that you were basing your religious beliefs off of horrible reasoning....I was implying that you were basing your Scientific beliefs off of horrible reasoning.

Quote
but isn't it also true that many of these pathogens have kept their identity as a species for millions of years?


I actually love this line of reasoning...and I will fill in the rest for you...

Ummm....we dont really have a lot of samples of microscopic organims from millions of years ago...so your question is kind of ummmm... pointless?

Lets keep this up though....this is the classic question of why havent we seen a germ evolve into a sea sponge.  Why do we not see the organisms evolve into higher species.

The answer is simple....do we have sea sponges?  If your a construction worker....you might get hired to design a house.  If their are no available architects around...they might ask you to do it.  If you do really well, they might let you keep doing it.  
They are not going to ask a construction worker to draw up blue prints to a house if their are plenty of architects and civil engineers lying around.  
This is why germs dont evolve...something else already evolved.

Also...Evolutionary Theory tells us that an organism will stay in its present state until either its current state ceases to be sufficient or a far superior adaptation is found(the latter is considered to be the rarer event.)  We still get sick...the 'Designer' apparently didnt do a very good job with immune systems, therefore there are still germs.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,20:43   

Russell,

I'm going through looking for missed questions.
Quote
No, what I meant is that Behe and Dembski and no doubt others are looking into how to realistically detect design and how.
What leads you to think that?

They are examining the question of how do we reasonably infer design. Incidentally, over at UD there is a surprising essay by John Stuart Mill in support of design.

Quote
But that's the problem with Behe's thesis. It rests on there being no way for these systems to have come about naturally. So what kind of research program has any IDer proposed to figure out a mechanism by which something happened supernaturally?
Well, I have a problem with questions of this sort because the idea that God causes supernatural events just doesn't compute. It is not a refutation of ID if ID does not know how the designer did it. I know of no research programs capable of detecting supernatural events. But NDE (neodarwinian evolution) doesn't know a lot of things also. One person who has at least taken a stab at proposing how things might have unfolded, albeit designed to do so, is Davison.

Quote
What are these alleged very good arguments against "Darawinism"?
 This is what we are spiraling towards. I will have to give it some serious effort, hopefully tomorrow.

Quote
Well, now. "SFAIK" is pretty much the key question. How much effort have you put into finding out? And how well equipped are you to judge what you read? You display some very fundamental misunderstandings of basic biology (e.g. the difference between a virus and a bacterium, but I'll get to that in another post).
This was in reference to the question about IC systems having been refuted. I just read today that Behe is planning an afterword in a 10th anniversary addition to DBB which will address said lack of any forthcoming refutation in the intervening ten years. He'd better have his ducks in a row or he'll get fried. I am not quite sure what you consider effort. I have read criticisms and answers to criticisms, in which literature is sometimes cited. It seems that the ID side usually goes through the literature with a fine comb and finds it wanting, having been promised far more than delivered. I don't actually go through the articles myself.

The bit about slappig down 59 or whatever it was articles during the courtroom trial was just as Behe said - bad courtroom theatrics. It is not to be taken seriously. All evidence used in trial is 'discoverable' which means it must be presented in adequate time to the lawyers of both sides.
When did I misunderstand the difference between a virus and a bacteria?
When I am not equipped to judge what I read, I think I usually know. I can't judge Demski's math, but I can certainly read and evaluate the logic of most of his essays. I can't read biology papers that are beyond my level, which is low, but if it is written for the nonexpert, one would hope that I have at least a fair ability. I was intrigued by, but not able to verify or come to a firm opinion on Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto. That I think would require a pretty deep knowledge of biology.

I had some trouble during the Dover trial getting good links. I read mostly Behe's testimony. It is pretty lengthy but I would be willing to look into it more. There are links back on page 2 that I have not had time to go back to. Are those what you are referring to?

Quote
Have you read Matt Inlay's summary of evolution of immunity?
Is that from the trial?

Quote
No, you don't. When you say such and such nonsense is good enough to convince Denton and yourself (and, let's face it, you're taking Denton's word for it), that elevates that nonsense to the same status of credibility as millions of person-hours of intensive research - call it what you want, but that's just postmodernist anti-intellectualism.
What about the thousands of man hours that Denton has put into his career and his book? I'm just not that moved by majority versus minority opinions. Your argument is that the majority must be right, and my argument that I can make up my own mind - postmodernism says that if it's true for me then it's true for me - a completely different ballgame.

Quote
Denton's first book was all about "debunking" common descent. His "equidistance" genetic argument is posed in direct opposition to it. Not just to "gradualism" - a term I think you're a little fuzzy on - but to common descent. Genetic distance does not speak to the rate or pace of change, it speaks to the number of steps between organism A and organism B. Now, I have to admit I've only scanned his second book, because from my scan and the reviews I read, it looked like a thorough waste of time. But I gathered that he dropped that argument altogether. Perhaps you can set me straight: does "equidistance", or any other quibble with common descent -  play any role at all in his second book? You call that "Denton's thought progressing nicely". I call it a crackpot abandoning a 150 year old idea that he championed 15 years ago, but attempting to retain his iconoclast hero status with less obviously wrong - because less substantial - mumbo-jumbo.


I think we are a little fuzzy on common descent, yes. Perhaps the only way to answer your question is to look through the second book. I did look at the index for common descent in the first book, and I didn't turn up any direct statements against it. So I guess it is more implied. Your interpretation of him is different from mine and again, I think the best thing would be to search for any recent statements from him on this. If he didn't make any mention of his prior arguments in his second book it doesn't mean he disavows the evidence he presented. I think he moved on to a more cosmic teleology and he speaks of frontloading. What if that frontloading includes sudden leaps? Does that frontloading corroborate common descent as understood by NDE? I think not.  

Quote
Our working theory is that both the virus and its host evolve. Do you doubt that?
I don't think we can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. Assuming the host is humans, I don't think we are having an apprecable amount of evolution in your lifetime for it to matter much one way or the other. As I already answered, the virus may indeed mutate in pernicious ways.

Quote
Do you think the fundamental mechanisms by which the two evolve are different?
Probably not but I don't think we know how either one evolved, and one is multicellular and the other one - is hard to even define. It is questionable how we get from single celled to multi. So I don't know. But the thing about viruses is that they are purely parasitic - isn't that so? Therefore, they must have evolved after hosts, despite their simplicity.

Quote
Do you think that "random mutation and natural selection" accounts for viral evolution, but that some fundamentally different mechanism is required for host evolution?
No, rather I think that the role of RM and NS are not adequate to produce the life forms. Certainly, the simpler the life form, the more likely that a random or other small mutation could be incorporated successfully into it's structure.

Quote
Or do you think there's some intelligence we can't detect driving the changes that sure look like they're due to random mutation and natural selection in the virus?
Well, as has been recently discovered, bacteria at least turn on mutations and turn them off as well. I find that pretty intelligent. The cell itself is very intelligent and hard to come to terms with. All those thousands of processes utilizing millions of molecules and billions of atoms in every cell, which seems to know how to manage it all. Perhaps there is some sort of cosmic mind permeating all living things. But no, I don't think God helps viruses mutate. Random mutations are just that - errors.  On the other hand, when pathogens happen to control their own mutations, I would consider that an interesting possibility for design theorists to add to their list.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that evolution proceeds against and despite the incredible array of error prevention, detection, and repair mechanisms of the replication process? That the mechanism of bringing forth endless millions of varied life forms is errors that slip past the sentinels? That DNA has devised some of the cleverest mechanisms to prevent that which is its greatest salvation? That a process which is usually deadly is also the one that leads to life?

Does that fit in with Occam?

There is nothing surprising in there being general families of viruses or bacteria. You seem to suppose that if I don't believe in NDE, that life forms are quite unrelated to each other and don't even operate upon the same principles.

Quote
But please, pray tell, what do you consider the driving force of evolution? Disembodied intelligence? Fascinating! Tell us how that works. Or, more to the point, tell us what evidence you have.
I have wondered this, and I don't have the answer. Look, here is my understanding of the human situation - we are intelligent but easily confused, we have no idea of the answers to any important question - who are we, what are we, why are we, where are we, what is our future, do we have a future - and we have little or no idea how to find the answers. Our perceptions are filled with fantasy and unreliable. For all intents and purposes, a human being is floating in the endless black without a compass or coordinate.

And there are two kinds of people in this world. A tiny minority who have noticed this, and the rest who haven't thought about it.

Pretending to have answers, or taking the nearest half-decent answer, doesn't satisfy me.

Yes, I think there is disembodied intelligence. My personal take on how it might work is that this intelligence, which may or may not be personal, is acting from within, guiding itself so to speak. This may answer the questions about why the creation isn't perfect or appears willy nilly at times. It very likely is.

Quote
So you think there are fundamentally different forces at work?
What I meant to say was that in your field, mutations are indeed important, but that I doubt mutations are the reason that organisms at a higher level than species or subspecies have evolved. About two years ago when I read Icons of Evolution, about problems with homology, or wait, maybe it was Milton's book, the idea came to me that there is at least one missing mechanism. Sort of like when Darwin proposed variation but had no idea of genetics. I think Darwinists have put all their hopes in the mutation basket because there are more mechanisms they don't know about and they lack the patience to wait it out.

Quote
You read a creationist lawyer, with an obvious religious axe to grind,
His axe wasn't obvious at all. He never mentions it. He doesn't speak for himself much in the book, just presents topics one by one, held together as necessary but largely consisting of quotes. The reason I came to suspect he is a creationist is because several times he uses the term 'abrupt appearance.'

Yes, of course I am familiar with quote mining, and it is a very valid thing to watch for. But creationists were called on it and I think they make good efforts now to place their quotes in the proper context. There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting a lot of quotes, so long as you have read and understood them as the author meant them, and present it in the same way to your readers. The majority of his quotes are from evolution scientists, and he never pretends otherwise.

I didn't say unsuccsessful vaccines were secret, but there is probably no reason I'd hear of them. I was just curious which diseases this has occured with.

There now, I think I'm caught up.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,21:00   

Ummm...quick question....why do you say this?

Quote
I don't think we can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution.


Ive never really understood this comment.
Why couldnt we?
microevolution says that small changes add up to big changes(using ID definition).  Perhaps a species of fish develops longer fins...big change...from gene mutation...small change

Macroevolution says that big changes add up to bigger changes....fins develop into limbs

The logic is pretty sound.  We observe microgravity...and then assume that most of the universe operates using gravity.  Sometimes scale introduces some new elements; such as the current debate over "dark matter".  However, most of the universe still operates using gravity.

Maybe math?
1+1=2  
1 x 10^29 + 1x10^29 = 2 x 10^29

seems that logically we can imply that general rules can be derived from smaller instances.  
Unless you think someone has actually manually added those two large numbers?


This seems to go back to 2 problems
1)Completely incapable of comprehending large numbers...billions of years for example
2)Somehow thinking that  biology works in strict terms...such as species and genus

If you have problem with either of the above, you will have a hard time understanding Evolution

**Thought Experiment**
How long will it take you to count to a billion Avo?
also
What is a species...and how do you tell the difference between two different species and two subspecies?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,05:29   

Re "I think Darwinists have put all their hopes in the mutation basket because there are more mechanisms they don't know about and they lack the patience to wait it out."

And here I figured that scientists had reached their conclusions from the evidence, and that their "hopes" were to gain a more accurate understanding of nature. Putting hopes in a basket would seem to be counterproductive toward that goal.

Henry

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,05:37   

And, that's the point.

Avo refuses to look at evidence that doesn't coincide with his preconceptions, or simply discards it.  He wants to believe the ID version, but they have no evidence, so he simply doesn't look at the evidence for evolution, and the evidence he does see he discards because "It's not convincing enough."  Then, he has the gall to bring up Occam?

Avo, when ID presents ANY evidence of the designer, let us all know.  Until then, your protestations are nothing more than sticking your head in the sand.  Actually, you are also maligning the evolutionary scientists that you speak about.  To you they are a bunch of impatient atheists that are so inept at their jobs that they can't see what you find obvious.  Could it be that perhaps you are mistaken about the vast majority of scientists?  Could it be that the brush you use to paint the 99.9999% of biologists that fully accept evolution is just a bit too broad?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,07:02   

If and when I have an idle moment, I'll see if I can muster the patience to respond to Avocreationist. But for the meantime here's a thought to contemplate.

Know-it-all physicists are always citing "evidence" like the fact that water runs downhill, and the fact that we return to earth after we jump up, as evidence of "gravity". But aren't these just trivial examples of microgravity? Isn't it an unwarranted presumption to extrapolate this to macrogravity - the phenomenon that purports to explain the orbit of planets around the sun, or galaxies around their centers? Shouldn't we teach the controversy?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,07:10   

Russell, I fully agree with you. It's more sinister than that though. See, it's materialist to assume that microgravity leads to macrogravity. If you care about fighting materialism in science, you should join me in my crusade against the massless particleism that is rampant with these atheist scientists and their conspiracy to turn everyone into an atheist. Will you sign my letter of dissent from materialist massless particleism? It says that we are skeptical of the ability of massless particles to account for the complexity we see in electromagnetic phenomena.

Even massless particle adherents like cogzoid have admitted that their theory "can't compete" with mine. Also Renier admitted that the "FDT is a gem" of a theory. Join the list that has grown infinity percent this month!

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,07:19   

Quote
Unless you think someone has actually manually added those two large numbers?
Puck, I don't think that's what's going on.

The point is that folks such as Avo (and indeed, people like Dembski and Behe, etc.) honestly believe that the difference between, say man and chimp isn't a quantitative difference ('2' vs. '3x10^113' ), but a qualitative difference ('2' vs. 'B' ).

That's why the math examples don't work for them.  They honestly do not see life as a continuum; they see it as a set of 'islands'

F'r instance: can I add integers and get an imaginary number?  Nope.  The integers and the imaginary number are both numbers, but you can't incrementally get from one to the other.

They're wrong, of course, but that's why the math stuff doesn't appear to make much headway.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,07:48   

Re "materialist massless particleism?"

Is a massless particle one that's not Catholic? :)

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,07:56   

Of course it isn't Catholic.  It's atheist.

I know the truth.  I know that massless particles do not exist.  But, atheistic scientists have made these particles up to further their agenda.  Any Catholic physicist who says that massless particles exist is just a confused FDT advocate.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,08:46   

Quote
The point is that folks such as Avo (and indeed, people like Dembski and Behe, etc.) honestly believe that the difference between, say man and chimp isn't a quantitative difference ('2' vs. '3x10^113' ), but a qualitative difference ('2' vs. 'B' ).


Oh...I know....but i was using this in reference to using smaller scale observations to determine larger scale predictions.

I just hate the comment on microevolution != macroevolution.  In almost every observational theory a smaller scale example is used to demonstrate a grander principle.  It is completely dishonest....and a cheap shot.

***side note***
I once mentioned the whole microgravity vs macrogravity when discussing this topic with a friend.  He informed me that I misunderstood gravity.  Gravity, according to my friend, was caused by the attraction between the sun and the earth.  Our attraction to the earth was merely a by-product of the larger attraction....and if the sun did not exist....we would float off into space.

Suffice it to say I immediately ended the conversation with my friend....and decided that it might be better to simply discuss different types of beer.

:p

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,09:49   

Of course, what massless particles actually lack is rest mass. And since they're restless, they travel at the highest possible speed (that of light).

Henry

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,09:56   

Quote
I once mentioned the whole microgravity vs macrogravity when discussing this topic with a friend.
Oh, sure you did! Now I suppose you're expecting me to share my imminent Nobel Prize with you.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,10:18   

hey...fair is fair....i beat you to the punch :p

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,11:22   

I think you guys spiked that punch.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,12:25   

I want to reply to all the kindly interest, but it certainly does tend to put off getting down to brass tacks - what have I read that makes me doubt random mutation as an adequate explanation, and why did I reject the Miller paper, for starters.
GCT
Quote
No, it does NOT cut both ways.  When the IDists actually present evidence (any evidence) then there might be a discussion.  Until then it will remain one sided, because ideas without evidence get no play.

Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.

Quote
Who cares what the personal philosophies of scientists are, so long as those philosophies don't interfere with their work?  So Dawkins is atheist, so what?  Does it interfere with his work?  No.  So, Dembski is Christian, does that interfere with his work?  Yes, it does, and that's why we have a problem.
Oh my, your objectivity is showing.

Quote
Paleontology, geology, medicine...
Paleontoogy is not considered Darwinism's strong suit, the field of geology would exist no matter what set of facts it turned up, and medicine is debatable.

CJ
Quote
First and foremost, most people are theists of one stripe or another.
But lots of evolutionists are theists. Some are even Catholic. Miller gets down on his knees before a man in a dress and funny hat, and lets him put a little white disc on his tongue, because he believes the prayers of the man in a dress has miraculously changed it into the body of Jesus. So that can't be the whole problem.
Quote
The human mind, while capable of the most subtle and sublime contemplations, evolved because it helped our ancestors survive.
Well, if you start with a supposition you can create a logical structure to support it.

Quote
Somebody has to be in charge, end of story.
I certainly do agree that most people are spiritual children, and religion often perpetuates that infantilism.

Quote
So you have to take multiple lines of evidence from different fields and see the agreement between them to really begin to see the overwhelming weight of the facts pointing to what is still an inherently unobserveable series of ancient events.
Sure, but books like Denton's and Milton's go through them one by one and examine them on that little deeper level.

Oh, wait, but that sounds like I don't accept evolution. What I think is happening, is that much of the data which supports an organic and coherent unfolding of life over time is overlayed with suppositions to augment it which may not be correct.

Quote
Finally, we're simply not equipped to appreciate "deep time."
Ah, yes. Another Dawkins favorite. Let's see what Spetner has to say in Not By Chance. Dawkins is discussing improbable events occurring to bring about origin of life. This is in chapter 6 of Blind Watchmaker. He says that Dawkins asks us to drop our intuitive feeling for chance. I guess he doesn't think it evolved very well, probably because his didn't. Dawkins likens the probability of certain admittedely very unlikely events to a long-lived alien playing bridge for millions of years, waiting for that perfect hand of bridge. He said a being who lived millions of years, would have a very different feeling about chance and time. If the being lived 100 million years, it would not be unusual for him to see a perfect hand of bridge from time to time and he would scarcely write home about it.

But Dawkins didn't do the calculation. And I have to ask myself - is it because he has no feel for probability, or is he dishonest? According to Spetner, if the being played 100 hands of bridge every day for 100 million years, the chance of seeing a perfect hand of bridge just once in his life is one in a quadrillion. Definitely something to write home about.

Now, I can understand a bumpkin like myself making this mistake. But Dawkins has a PhD, a science degree, is a chair at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, has written books that specifically deal with the problems of evolution, and he is the Grand Poobah of the public understanding of science.

Quote
It seems preposterous to most people that, for instance, a 1% improvement in wing efficiency could act as a "force" leading to differential survival among a lineage of proto-birds.
No, it doesn't seem preposterous at all. What seems preposterous is that a creature could have 7% of a wing, or 22% of a wing. Berlinski dealt with this in his answer to the Fish Eyes paper, but you folks don't read him, do you? Meyer deals with this problem also - but I don't suppose anyone has read his scandalous paper either. There are other authors and I am sure I have some at hand who find the problem of random mutations leading slowly to novel features and managing to incorporate them into existing structure all the while problematic. Now, maybe it occurred, but it is definitely problematic.

Puck-

Quote
Deism is not claiming that God "made it look" like he was not involved.
I thought you said that I had underestimated God if I didn't think he could do that.
Quote
They are claiming that God=nature.
I could agree except it all depends on how you define nature. I, for instance, don't really believe in a material world. I think there is only the spiritual world.

Quote
You seem to think that either "God is making things fall to the ground" or "God is not involved with things falling to the ground".  You ignore the 3rd option....God invented a mechanism to do it.
but everyone knows that - it apparently upset some people in Newton's day.

Quote
If the 'Designer' is a sentient being....then why would he directly do everything?
In my opinion he would only do directly what needed doing directly. I find the origin of life to be a strong candidate. But again, I don't really see God as a separate being living outside the universe. I don't think, for example, that there is life apart from God. God is life and is the life in all things. Now, is that any different than saying God is Nature?

Quote
Unless the 'Designer' is a severly limited intelligent being.
You seem to be saying that if God had to interfere his intelligence is limited. I find that an unnecessary judgement. I'm all for admiring the cosmic mind, but I have trouble seeing how frontloading initial conditions for the 'material' universe could lead to a cell.

Quote
but to Science it doesnt matter....they just say..."Things fall to the ground...they always fall at the same rate...we are going to name this force gravity and describe it to the best of our ability."
Well, that sort of objectivity has not been part of evolution theory. Also, you are comparing fundamental laws to something contrived from those laws but which is much more complex. A cell is many orders of magnitude more complex than dropping balls off a tower. It would be better to compare a cell to the entire working of the cosmos. If you landed on an empty planet, and found structures like the pyramids but no people (perhaps life got wiped out) you might study many things about their composition and structure, but wouldn't the question of whether they were placed there intentionally be of interest?

Quote
Your saying that we can compare our current reality to one that is either devoid or full of God.  We cannot, therefore this reality doesnt mimick an ID reality...this reality doesnt mimick a naturalism one....this reality is our only point of comparison.
Well, yes, that's what I was saying. And therefore, how can we assume that there is no evidence that a God was needed to set things up?
IF there is a God, then a God-set-up world is the only possible one.

Quote
can you build something that looks undesigned? now you might decide to build a perfect pile of rocks.
Do you mean a perfect pile of rocks like, say, the pyramids? And it wouldn't look designed? And why attribute to the creator such tactics? It's almost like Christian dogma, in which the creator has set up a rigged game so that the highest possible proportion of people go to ####.

Quote
Ummm....we dont really have a lot of samples of microscopic organims from millions of years ago...so your question is kind of ummmm... pointless?
Alright, I was going on memory. I am pretty sure that TB and other pathogens have been identified from bodies that are thousands of years old. But somehow I am not sure you are right.

No, the continued existence of simple organisms doesn't bother me. The only reason they would become extinct is if conditions changed and they couldn't adapt. But if they fill a good niche, and other forms evolved from them, there is no reason for the original to disapper.

Quote
We still get sick...the 'Designer' apparently didnt do a very good job with immune systems, therefore there are still germs.
That isn't how it works. Everything is food. The system would crash if the balance were unbalanced.

Quote
Macroevolution says that big changes add up to bigger changes....fins develop into limbs.
The logic is pretty sound.
Almost anything can appear sound if it is unexamined. It is a quick and simple deduction and the arguments against it are growing. I guess I am beginning to wonder if you guys have actually read many of these arguments? But at some point I am supposed to get something together to explain:
My take on the IC arguments
Why I think there are good arguments against NDE,
which includes: mutation theory and incremental change theory
 
Your question about counting to a billion tells me you haven't read what IDists have to say on the topic of probability. Time is not a miracle worker.

Quote
What is a species...and how do you tell the difference between two different species and two subspecies?
I like to go with if they can breed and make fertile offspring.

Oh, and BTW, I have read Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God. Can't remember them, but I recall at least two were quite good  (the ones I had thought of myself) but he is on my sh## list. He taught that the saved will enjoy viewing the sufferings of the damned. A very pernicious influence in this world, he was.

GCT-
Quote
Avo refuses to look at evidence that doesn't coincide with his preconceptions, or simply discards it.
It looks like projection to me...

Quote
Actually, you are also maligning the evolutionary scientists that you speak about.  To you they are a bunch of impatient atheists that are so inept at their jobs that they can't see what you find obvious.
Oh, it was kindly meant. I wasnt singling them out in particular. It is human nature. There are two motives. One is ego: the desire to be right. And the second is what I mentioned above, the desire to quell the inner void, to convince oneself that one knows anything at all.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,13:06   

Quote
There are two motives. One is ego: the desire to be right. And the second is what I mentioned above, the desire to quell the inner void, to convince oneself that one knows anything at all.
Quote
looks like projection to me...


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,13:22   

Not that it makes any difference one way or the other (since exact numbers aren't available for estimating the chances of steps in early evolution), but just for the sake of verifying calculations: what consititutes a "perfect hand" in bridge? (I don't know anything about the game, but if the "perfect hand" is as easily defined as poker's Royal Flush, I guess anyone could verify it.)

I assume, Avocreationist, you've already gone through this exercise. Please don't tell us you're just taking Spetner's word for it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,13:59   

Quote
Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.


we have, for years now, with no luck. Your response is just a cop-out.

ask Dembski; it doesn't exist.

tho I'm sure he will also respond - we're working on it! any day now!

uh... yeah.

Debmski appears to be the ONLY IDer who claims that he is truly interested in setting up research into the "questions" raised by ID. Why don't you go ask him what his research protocol is.

We've been asking since 1998, and he just keeps putting it off.

If he was a grad student, using ID for his thesis topic, he would have washed out of grad school years ago, simply because he never came up with any method, or even a hypothesis, to test.

Is this truly the kind of science you want for your kids?

I think you better take another look.

If you don't believe me, you can email Wesley and he will provide you direct questions asked of Dembski over the last 6 years or so about this very issue.

the answers, while humorous, came as no surprise to the rest of us.

Quote
I could agree except it all depends on how you define nature. I, for instance, don't really believe in a material world. I think there is only the spiritual world.


well, then, proceeding from there, you have a lot of work to do inventing an entirely new way to test hypothesis and predictions, as there is no way to utilize the scientific method to answer any questions arising in your world.

good luck with that.

Russel's response to your freudian references is exactly correct, btw.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,15:32   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,18:25)
Quote
No, it does NOT cut both ways. When the IDists actually present evidence (any evidence) then there might be a discussion. Until then it will remain one sided, because ideas without evidence get no play.

Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.

We've been looking for it.  Haven't been able to find it.  Not in the writings of any of the IDists, not in the natural world, not anywhere.

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,17:40   

There is only the "spiritual world"???? To modernize Swift, what do you consider that stuff that comes out your ass?

Avo, you are - at great and exceptional unfunny length - offering up what can be called on a forum that censors certain language (and that's fine by me) "horsehockey." Enjoy this phantasy, whatever your role is imagined to be within it, but don't expect to be anything other than the butt of many jokes - you DID notice that no one even bothers to get upset with you now, or did you?

How much are you donating to the I.D. cause? If nothing, why not, if you really believe an iota of your own horsehockey?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,17:43   

Quote
To modernize Swift, what do you consider that stuff that comes out your ass?


ahh, that, which by any other name, would smell as sweet...

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,18:51   

No Russ, I don't know how to calculate probabilities. But it should be easy enough to do. It's pretty simple. You have 52 cards and a perfect hand of bridge is when each of the four players gets an entire suit. Do you want Spetner's calc's?

Quote
you DID notice that no one even bothers to get upset with you now, or did you?
Oh. I thought some people were getting a little bit too upset. So I guess it could be worse.

Quote
If he was a grad student, using ID for his thesis topic,he would have washed out of grad school
He did use an ID topic for his thesis. I read it recently. I can't remember just what it was.

Quote

well, then, proceeding from there, you have a lot of work to do inventing an entirely new way to test hypothesis and predictions, as there is no way to utilize the scientific method to answer any questions arising in your world.
I assure you, it is the very same world, and everything still works. Don't fret.

Rilke's Granddaughter:

Eric Rilke was my childhood sweetheart. Are you his sister?

Quote
The point is that folks such as Avo (and indeed, people like Dembski and Behe, etc.) honestly believe that the difference between, say man and chimp isn't a quantitative difference ('2' vs. '3x10^113' ), but a qualitative difference ('2' vs. 'B' ).


Well, if that is the sort of argument (and I am referring to Puck's argument of 1+1=2) given to overcome the obstacles to NDE, then I must say I am ......shocked. Simply shocked. No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found it.

Anyway, I have to give this idea some thought. What is a qualitative difference in a world made of strings?

Do you not find a qualitative difference between the intelligence of humans and chimps? What about humans and frogs? If it is just a matter of increased quantity, then what would constitute a qualitative difference? How about motility? Does that count?

It's not that there is a qualitative difference between people and chimps, there are qualitative differnces between all major divisions. Isn't a shell a qualitative difference from a backbone?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,19:40   

Quote
He did use an ID topic for his thesis. I read it recently. I can't remember just what it was.


not quite... and what do you think happened to Dembski after he graduated?  did he go on to pursue a career in science?  no?  where is Big D right now eh?  Ever take a look at one of his current course syllabi?  is that the kind of stuff you would teach your kids?

Quote
I assure you, it is the very same world, and everything still works. Don't fret.


you sir, certainly don't make me "fret".

however, please do show us how the scientific method works to test "spiritual" hypotheses, or even how you manage to create one to begin with.

It sure seems you have constructed your own little pocket of null-reality there.

and speaking of null-reality...

Quote
No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found it.


*sigh*

I assume you are referring to JAD?

If so, man, you sure are heading farther and farther into null-space.

why don't you ask Jon why he has never tested his PEH sometime?

and ask him why it ended up as the crankiest evolutionary theory listed on crank.net, while your at it.

really, if you think PEH, or any other pant-loading concept holds water, you have no business being here. You're too far gone to bring back to reality.

bye bye.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,19:46   

let me preface this post by explaining that I have been drinking....so this might not make a great deal of sense

Quote
Paleontoogy is not considered Darwinism's strong suit


Really...because I dont think dinosaur bones are supporting creationism or Intelligent Design....unless the ID makes mistakes...massive billion year old mistakes

Quote
Miller gets down on his knees before a man in a dress and funny hat, and lets him put a little white disc on his tongue, because he believes the prayers of the man in a dress has miraculously changed it into the body of Jesus. So that can't be the whole problem.


Wow....that just sounded incredibly spiteful.  I thought you liked Jesus.  Did he give you the idea that being a jerk was ok?

Quote
But Dawkins didn't do the calculation. And I have to ask myself - is it because he has no feel for probability, or is he dishonest? According to Spetner, if the being played 100 hands of bridge every day for 100 million years, the chance of seeing a perfect hand of bridge just once in his life is one in a quadrillion. Definitely something to write home about.


LMAO
Quote
Odds against receiving a perfect hand (13 cards in one suit) = 169,066,442 to 1


quadrillion-1,000,000,000,000,000

the funny thing is that the number of times you perform an action do not effect the probability.  If you flip a coin a million times....your odds of getting a head are still 1 in 2 every time you flip.....

unless you are referring to the law of large numbers....in which case it is indicated that the odds will eventually balance out if the chance event occurs frequently enough.

Either way...the math is flawed....

Quote
But Dawkins didn't do the calculation.


Of course he didnt....only an idiot would assume that he could quantify the probability of all random occurences that have ever occured.  He can guess...but unless he was there...he cant really give you odds.

Quote
No, it doesn't seem preposterous at all. What seems preposterous is that a creature could have 7% of a wing, or 22% of a wing.


Really....like a penguin?
Hmmm...maybe you are referring to 25% of an eye....like a light sensitive organ that cannot detect shape or distance.  It would really kill your cause if we found one of those.

Quote
but everyone knows that - it apparently upset some people in Newton's day.


Newton didnt upset anyone with his theory of gravity...no one that didnt concede under the heap of evidence.  Who are you talking about?

Quote
A cell is many orders of magnitude more complex than dropping balls off a tower. It would be better to compare a cell to the entire working of the cosmos. If you landed on an empty planet, and found structures like the pyramids but no people (perhaps life got wiped out) you might study many things about their composition and structure, but wouldn't the question of whether they were placed there intentionally be of interest?


Hmmm interesting...so i suppose if we found grids of rocks existing and someone told you that they were natural...you wouldnt believe them either.

In the case of the mysterious planet....you fail to mention something.  Pyramids, from our point of reference do not occur naturally.  We have never seen giant complex structures arise from nature....however, you have no point of reference for the cell....except to point to your own, rather humble experiences.

Quote
       We still get sick...the 'Designer' apparently didnt do a very good job with immune systems, therefore there are still germs.--me

That isn't how it works. Everything is food. The system would crash if the balance were unbalanced.  Hmmm... how would it crash if germs ceased to exist?


Germs do not "consume" organisms...they use organisms.  Germs and computer viruses have a lot in common....would the internet cease to exist if we didnt have computer viruses?

Quote
Alright, I was going on memory. I am pretty sure that TB and other pathogens have been identified from bodies that are thousands of years old. But somehow I am not sure you are right.


You said "millions"....obviously you dont understand that millions is very different than thousands.  Once again, you cannot conceptualize such large numbers.

Your question about counting to a billion tells me you haven't read what IDists have to say on the topic of probability. Time is not a miracle worker.

I dont really care about time....the question...and a rather simple one at that...is how long would it take for you to count to a billion....off the top of your head.

Ill change it to 3 questions
1) how long to count to 1,000?
2) how long to count to a million?
3) how long to count to a billion?

the point...if you care to take this excercise any further...is that you probably dont comprehend the massive difference between a thousand and a billion

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,19:52   

Quote
I dont really care about time....the question...and a rather simple one at that...is how long would it take for you to count to a billion....off the top of your head.


How long does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,23:16   

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 17 2006,01:46)
I dont really care about time....the question...and a rather simple one at that...is how long would it take for you to count to a billion....off the top of your head.

With a very simplified calculation. It wont be quite right but will give an idea. I came to an answer of 30 years non-stop counting. At 8 hours per day it would take 90 years.

In reality it would probably take far longer. I allowed one number per second. Sounds slow for low numbers, but as the majority of numbers are in excess of 1,348, 712 I am actually being generous.

So; 1000,000,000
/60=16,666,667 mins
/60=277.778 hours
/24=11,574 days
/365=31.7 years  So 31 years non-stop. @8Hrs/day = 93 years.

Sounds like fun, here goes; 1,2,3,4, ...

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,02:00   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 17 2006,01:40)
Quote
No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found it.


*sigh*

I assume you are referring to JAD?

More likely referring to me, the first post at the top of this page.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,02:05   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 17 2006,00:51)
No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found {evidence for ID}.

I notice you haven't offered any.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,03:56   

Quote
We've been looking for it. Haven't been able to find it. Not in the writings of any of the IDists, not in the natural world, not anywhere.
Thats because no one has found any, even if we assume that the motivations and philosophies of all the people involved are irrelevant. Lets also assume that the motivations, ablities and identities of the designer are not required to detect design. The problem is that ID proponents are saying they have the evidence. Dembski for example, says he has mathematical methods that can detect design, however he has yet to prove this. He has neither proved that non-intelligence is incapable of generating CSI, nor had he proved that his methods can distinguish design from non-design. Until this happens, whether or not the maths or the logic of his arguments add up is irrelevant. Im sure mathematicians will hate me for saying that, but in biology all that matters is that it can be proved to work, Dembski has not attempted this as far as I am aware.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,04:46   

Quote
He has neither proved that non-intelligence is incapable of generating CSI, nor had he proved that his methods can distinguish design from non-design.


This is a clever little trap they've made for themselves.  Even if they had an actual comparitive method, they'd still have to assume the existence of "non-design".  We must be able to observe things that are not the result of intelligent design.  In other words, there must be some things that God did not create.  This necessary assumption seems antithetical to fundamentalist doctrine.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,05:57   

Quote
(Avo: ) But Dawkins didn't do the calculation. And I have to ask myself - is it because he has no feel for probability, or is he dishonest? According to Spetner, if the being played 100 hands of bridge every day for 100 million years, the chance of seeing a perfect hand of bridge just once in his life is one in a quadrillion. Definitely something to write home about.

Now, I can understand a bumpkin like myself making this mistake. But Dawkins has a PhD, a science degree, is a chair at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, has written books that specifically deal with the problems of evolution, and he is the Grand Poobah of the public understanding of science.
Quote
(Russell: ) I assume, Avocreationist, you've already gone through this exercise [of verifying the calculation]. Please don't tell us you're just taking Spetner's word for it.
Quote
(Avo: ) No Russ, I don't know how to calculate probabilities. But it should be easy enough to do. It's pretty simple. You have 52 cards and a perfect hand of bridge is when each of the four players gets an entire suit. Do you want Spetner's calc's?
So... you did just take Spetner's word for it??? Why would you do that???

Here's my calculation. (First of all, I assume the alien in question is only concerned about the hand he/she/it is dealt, not the hands of the other 3 players. Just as in poker, if I have a royal flush, its "degree of royalty" does not depend on the hands of the other players.) Being dealt the hand you describe should have a probability of 1/158,753,389,900. Here's why: the first card you're dealt has a 52/52 chance of being of one suit. Then three more cards are dealt before you get another one. All three have to be of a suit different from yours: 39/51 x 38/50 x 37/49. Then you're dealt another. Chance of it's being the same suit as your first card: 12/48. Repeat all the way through the deck, you get (12! )x(39! )/(51! ) = 1/158,753,389,900.

In 100 million years X 100 hands per day, you'd get 3,652,600,000,000 shots at it, so I would expect to get a perfect hand somewhere around 3,652,600,000,000/158,753,389,900 = 23 times.

Now, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if I neglected something in this calculation, but if so, I hope it's something relatively subtle. Please tell me what's wrong with my calculation. OR - if you can't - why you perceive egg on Dawkins face over this.

Could it be that you've just demonstrated, once again, your bias in whose word you're willing to take for things you don't or won't understand? And could it be that the egg is on your face?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,05:58   

Quote
Even if they had an actual comparitive method, they'd still have to assume the existence of "non-design".
You're right of course, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, it may be possible to test on non biological systems, perhaps using genetic algorithms, or some form of artificial life. Also, if Dembski has calculated the probability of the flagellum evolving, it should be possible to apply the same method to a biological system where we understand more about its evolution. Assuming the maths holds up to scrutiny, which it apparently doesn't, that might not prove intelligent design but it would be useful for them.

Of course if this worked it probably would have been done by now.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,08:29   

Finally, we're simply not equipped to appreciate "deep time."
Quote
Ah, yes. Another Dawkins favorite. Let's see what Spetner has to say in Not By Chance. Dawkins is discussing improbable events occurring to bring about origin of life. This is in chapter 6 of Blind Watchmaker. He says that Dawkins asks us to drop our intuitive feeling for chance. I guess he doesn't think it evolved very well, probably because his didn't. Dawkins likens the probability of certain admittedely very unlikely events to a long-lived alien playing bridge for millions of years, waiting for that perfect hand of bridge. He said a being who lived millions of years, would have a very different feeling about chance and time. If the being lived 100 million years, it would not be unusual for him to see a perfect hand of bridge from time to time and he would scarcely write home about it.

But Dawkins didn't do the calculation. And I have to ask myself - is it because he has no feel for probability, or is he dishonest? According to Spetner, if the being played 100 hands of bridge every day for 100 million years, the chance of seeing a perfect hand of bridge just once in his life is one in a quadrillion. Definitely something to write home about.

Now, I can understand a bumpkin like myself making this mistake. But Dawkins has a PhD, a science degree, is a chair at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, has written books that specifically deal with the problems of evolution, and he is the Grand Poobah of the public understanding of science.

As you've seen by now, Dawkins' calculation was perfectly appropriate to illustrate the point. But even if it weren't, you're just dealing with the illustration and not the point, which is valid. People are not generally equipped to conceive of frames of reference more than a couple of orders of magnitude from our everyday experience. This gives them an excuse to object to evolution on a 'gut level' without engaging the evidence.

It seems preposterous to most people that, for instance, a 1% improvement in wing efficiency could act as a "force" leading to differential survival among a lineage of proto-birds.
Quote
No, it doesn't seem preposterous at all. What seems preposterous is that a creature could have 7% of a wing, or 22% of a wing.

A couple of points here.
First, the idea that any biological feature is some 'percentage' of the 'completed' feature misunderstands evolution. Only with hindsight can we say that one organism was 'evolving into' another. If a creature possesses what we arbitrarily deem to be '20%' of a wing, it's because that feature provided a discernable advantage to that creature's ancestors in its way of life. If an improvement in that feature comes about due to mutation, the improved version will spread in the population.
Additionally, there are numerous examples (flying squirrrels, flying snakes, flying fish) of gliding animals that do, indeed, have features that can be compared to 'partial' wings. Remembering my first point, though, we must keep in mind that a flying squirrel is a 'complete' organism in its own right, whose ancestors were successful in perpetuating a lineage of gliding arboreal mammals. They were not 'striving' to be 'more like a bat' for instance.
Quote
Berlinski dealt with this in his answer to the Fish Eyes paper, but you folks don't read him, do you? Meyer deals with this problem also - but I don't suppose anyone has read his scandalous paper either. There are other authors and I am sure I have some at hand who find the problem of random mutations leading slowly to novel features and managing to incorporate them into existing structure all the while problematic. Now, maybe it occurred, but it is definitely problematic.

I have in fact read Berlinski's bombast regarding the Nilsson and Pelger paper, the original of which I have also read. Have you?

I still maintain that what is 'problematic' about evolutionary narratives of this sort is the personal incredulity of the individual with a problem. "I don't see how" (X) occured is just not a convincing argument when someone is telling you that they DO see a plausible progression. That these sorts of explanations are routinely derided as 'Just-so Stories' by creationists without further analysis is just shorthand for "keep up that incrtedulity." The problem you have with "managing to incorporate them into existing structure" might be ignoring that the original function of a 'co-opted' structure may have been an entirely different one in the ancestral lineage. The evolution of the mammalian inner ear is a classic example.
As regards fish eyes, I saw a fascinating report recently about a 'four eyed fish'. It seems that the lens structure in the newer set of downward facing eyes is entirely 'reinvented.' i.e. Despite having a perfectly good embryonic pathway for growing lenses in the original eyes, another one has evolved from scratch. Kind of spells trouble for 'frontloading' arguments. Don't remember where I saw it, but if I can I'll try to link it up.
And, avo, if you have any interest in looking into the Nilsson and Pelger paper and Berlinski's critique, we can link that up too and talk it over.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,08:54   

Re "Finally, we're simply not equipped to appreciate "deep time.""

Personally, I just treat it as simple arithmetic. If something can move a millimeter in a year, then in a few billion years it could cross a middle sized continent.

Henry

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,10:48   

Quote
[Behe and Dembski] are examining the question of how do we reasonably infer design.
Right. But for all the useful conclusions that have come out it, they might just as well be examining their navels. So far, I think you can summarize those conclusions as "If it looks designed, who's to say it isn't?"
Quote
It is not a refutation of ID if ID does not know how the designer did it.
I know of no research programs capable of detecting supernatural events.
So, if I understand correctly, ID says that because we don't know everything, we should leave open the possibility that some as yet unspecified explanation might emerge. OK. I'll buy that. It's when we start specifying scientifically - indeed, epistemologically - meaningless candidates (e.g. a "disembodied intelligence", "supernatural agency", "The Designer") that you lose me. The point is, ID doesn't provide anything substantial to refute.
Quote
But NDE (neodarwinian evolution) doesn't know a lot of things also. One person who has
at least taken a stab at proposing how things might have unfolded, albeit designed to do so,
is Davison.
Huh? The fact that the currently most successful theory "doesn't know everything" somehow validates Davison's crackpottery?

Quote
(Russell: ) What are these alleged very good arguments against "Darawinism"?
Quote
(Avo: ) This is what we are spiraling towards. I will have to give it some serious effort, hopefully tomorrow.
Quote
(Annie: )
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!
Quote
(Avo: )SFAIK, [research Behe claims is nonexistent] is mostly overblown. We'll see.
Quote
(Avo: )I just read today that Behe is planning an afterword in a 10th anniversary addition to DBB which will address said lack of any forthcoming refutation in the intervening ten years
Quote
(Annie: )The sun'll come out...
well, you get the idea.
Quote
It seems that the ID side usually goes through the literature with a fine comb and finds it wanting, having been promised far more than delivered. I don't actually go through the articles myself.
Need I say more? Apparently I do. Do you really think every contention the Disco Inst makes remains legitimate until the Disco Inst issues an explicit, public, notarized statement conceding that their scientific pretentions have been thoroughly demolished?
Quote
The bit about slappig down 59 or whatever it was articles during the courtroom trial
was just as Behe said - bad courtroom theatrics. It is not to be taken seriously.
I don't give a flying fig whether the references were "slapped down" in court, or brought to Behe's attention in a discreet private e-mail. The point remains: he said that all that research did not, and never would, exist. Why is it not to be taken seriously? References to evolution of immunity presented at Kitzmiller trial: Here.
Quote
(Russell: ) Have you read Matt Inlay's summary of evolution of immunity?
Here.
Quote
All evidence used in trial is 'discoverable' which means it must be presented in adequate time to the lawyers of both sides.
Excuse me. I thought this was a discussion about science and evidence, not about courtroom procedural rules
Quote
When I am not equipped to judge what I read, I think I usually know.
I don't disagree: you do think that. But perhaps if you remember the key words, "Spetner" and "perfect bridge hand", you'll think twice.
Quote
I can't judge Demski's math, but I can certainly read and evaluate the logic of most of his essays.
What logic is there that is not completely dependent on the math? Have you noticed that no one who defends the conclusions can defend the math, and that no one who understands the math defends the conclusions?
Quote
I can't read biology papers that are beyond my level, which is low, but if it is written for the nonexpert, one would hope that I have at least a fair ability.
Let me just throw out this wildly hypothetical idea. What if the creationists purporting to critique the biologists are actually not so much trying to objectively explain, as they are to obfuscate and deny the science, and to justify a conclusion they're committed to by faith? Whoa! I think I just blew my own mind!
Quote
I was intrigued by, but not able to verify or come to a firm opinion on Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto. That I think would require a pretty deep knowledge of biology.
So why do you suppose it has not been endorsed by anyone who possesses a deep (read: minimal professional) knowledge of biology?
Quote
I'm just not that moved by majority versus minority opinions.
Glad to hear it. I hope you relayed your unimpressedness to the Disco Inst over garbage like this .
Quote
Your argument is that the majority must be right,
Wrong. My argument is that, if you're going to dismiss the conclusions of entire disciplines with millions of person hours of meticulously documented research that has been thoroughly vetted by the scientific community, in favor of an "iconoclastic", not-peer-previewed, thoroughly rebutted book, whose central point is later abandoned by its author, you should have some better justification than "looks reasonable to this untrained eye".
Quote
postmodernism says that if it's true for me then it's true for me - a completely different ballgame.
Forgive me, but the two ballgames look pretty similar to me.

Quote
(Russell: ) But please, pray tell, what do you consider the driving force of evolution? Disembodied intelligence? Fascinating! Tell us how that works. Or, more to the point, tell us what evidence you have.
Quote
(Avo: ) I have wondered this, and I don't have the answer. Look, ...a human being is floating in the endless black without a compass or coordinate.
And there are two kinds of people in this world. A tiny minority who have noticed this, and the rest who haven't thought about it.
Now, don't tell me; let me guess: which category does Avocreationist fall into? And is one's opinion of ID, or creationism in general, correlated with which group one falls into?
Quote
Pretending to have answers, or taking the nearest half-decent answer, doesn't satisfy me.
Unless, apparently, it comes from a Behe or a Spetner, in which case it doesn't even need to be half decent.
Quote
Yes, I think there is disembodied intelligence. My personal take on how it might work is that this intelligence, which may or may not be personal, is acting from within, guiding itself so to speak. This may answer the questions about why the creation isn't perfect or appears willy nilly at times. It very likely is.
Yes, well, that's all very fascinating, in a New Agey kind of way. But, I repeat: Tell us what evidence you have.
Quote
When did I misunderstand the difference between a virus and a bacteria?
When you referred to influenza bacteria.
Wendell Bird - no obvious religious axe to grind? Either you are unfamiliar with the organization he's affiliated with: the Institute for Creation Research or you are very, very gullible.

There, I think I'm caught up.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,14:06   

I think I have to see if I can keep this short.

Jon and others seem to say that in all the ID writings, they have not found a good argument. Sure, I find this strange. Anyway, I will go through the Miller-Demski flagellum papers and comment. Hopefully today.

Unfortunately, the perfect hand of bridge involves all four players getting a full suit. I specified that! I took Spetner's word for it in the sense that I would be very suprised if he would be stupid enough to make such an error when correcting someone else's. And I have you folks to help me out. If he is way off, I will personally write to him.

Puck, although you called me cheap and dishonest, I'll go thru and answer the most pertinent points.
I don't suppose that dinosaurs indicate a mistake.


Quote
Miller gets down on his knees before a man in a dress and funny hat, and lets him put a little white disc on his tongue, because he believes the prayers of the man in a dress has miraculously changed it into the body of Jesus. So that can't be the whole problem.


Wow....that just sounded incredibly spiteful.  I thought you liked Jesus.  Did he give you the idea that being a jerk was ok?
 Not too spiteful, mostly just matter of fact. The point was, his faith does not prevent him accepting evolution theory. I do like Jesus. Altho his existence cannot be proven.

I don't know what LMAO stands for.

I'm not sure how the fact that the probability is the same each time you deal relates...I don't know the law of large numbers.
Quote
Of course he didnt....only an idiot would assume that he could quantify the probability of all random occurences that have ever occured.  He can guess...but unless he was there...he cant really give you odds.
Yes, no one knows the real odds of the real events he was speaking about, but his point was to show that people don't have an appreciation of deep time. What he showed was that he, who is NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE, also has no feel for when a calculation is necessary.

I've seen it written, re god of the gaps or just history, that Newton's theories bothered people because they thought God or his angels moved the planets. His mechanistic universe supposedly unemployed God.
Quote
Pyramids, from our point of reference do not occur naturally.  We have never seen giant complex structures arise from nature....however, you have no point of reference for the cell
Yes, this is the problem exactly. We are discussing living systems that reproduce. If not for that, there wouldn't be confusion.

Quote
Im sure mathematicians will hate me for saying that, but in biology all that matters is that it can be proved to work,
Much in NDE is also unproved.

Improvius,  
Quote
Even if they had an actual comparitive method, they'd still have to assume the existence of "non-design".  We must be able to observe things that are not the result of intelligent design.  In other words, there must be some things that God did not create.  This necessary assumption seems antithetical to fundamentalist doctrine.
Not sure why you say it is a necessary assumtion. God created everything - you must mean things like wind blowing over sand and leaving patterns. Yes, this is just the sort of thing that IDists do use.

CJ,

As I already said above, the point that people need to understand large numbers is valid, but my point was that Dawkins doesn't understand, and he uses deep time like magic. It isn't magic.

I have a good argument against the flying squirrels idea. Completely different construction  - gliding apparatuses don't lead to wings. It is in one of my silly books here somewhere. Perhaps I should learn to use th scanner.

I haven't read the original of the fish eyes paper; I suspect I won't learn from it. But I'm willing to. I know where to find the Berlinski critique, but I don't remember if the paper is linked. It seems odd you call Berlinski's points bombast. I rather thought the 4 or 5 defenders engaged in bombast - although I did not think so until I read Berlinski's replies to them. I read their points first, and I decided that they demolished whoever they were arguing against and decided not to bother reading further. But my eyes strayed down and I read the first paragraph or two of Berlinski's answers. Yes, I thought he demolished them.

Quote
"I don't see how" (X) occured is just not a convincing argument
Sure, but they say a lot more than that.

Quote
when someone is telling you that they DO see a plausible progression.
But Miller, for example, said no such thing. More later.

Quote
The problem you have with "managing to incorporate them into existing structure" might be ignoring that the original function of a 'co-opted' structure may have been an entirely different one in the ancestral lineage.
But that IS the problem. In biology, everything has to interface perfectly. Co-option - I don't understand how it is supposed to work. It sounds to me like parts lying around in the garage. My husband does this sort of thing all the time - he invents things from parts lying around to get a job done - such as placing drywall on the basement ceiling with only a weakling to help. How does the cell co-opt a part or several parts that were used for different things and make them fit, and how does it decide that hey, I've got this handy piece here, now let me code it into a different spot in the genome to go with this other thingie... I mean how does it get into the blueprint? do you see what I'm asking? You've got a widget out in the cell, and you've got a need or some evolving system - but how does the 'idea' occur to get them together in the genome that that the building of the new structure is coordinated?

Quote
If something can move a millimeter in a year, then in a few billion years it could cross a middle sized continent.
But it isn't that simple and that is what the argument is about.

Russ,
Quote
It's when we start specifying scientifically - indeed, epistemologically - meaningless candidates (e.g. a "disembodied intelligence", "supernatural agency", "The Designer") that you lose me.
 I'm sorry about that and I sympathize. But look closely at what Jeannot said on the pissant thread:

She says ID is unscientific because-
"First, it requires a programmer that could be supernatural, which is not falsifiable,"

And so this is a kind of circle that is going on. If the scientist decides that evidence simply cannot point to the supernatural, even indirectly, then what are we to do if our universe was indeed caused by an intelligence or self-existing entity? Science would forever bar itself from discovering truth.

Quote
The point is, ID doesn't provide anything substantial to refute.
It is falsifiable, and since it is a direct refutation of Darwinism, it had better be, or else they are both unfalsifiable. The falsification would be finding out how complex biochemical systems could self-originate.

I cannot validate or invalidate Davison's quackery, I merely pointed out that I am glad to see someone thinking outside the box (others are as well) because I think evolutin theory needs new ideas.

Quote
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow


Ha, ha! Good one. It reminds me of one of my favorite parts of Through The Looking Glass, when Alice is being hired by the Red Queen. The queen tells her that at teatime she will get jam on her toast every other day. Oh, good, says Alice, Is it jam today?
No, says the queen, it is always jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow. It is never jam today.

No. I am not putting procedural rules ahead of evidence. I'm saying you can't suddenly slap down 59 articles and demand a real and true opinion on the spot. If  even a few of those articles were really good, why didn't they use them properly?  Behe did his search of the literature and he testified that there were no good pathways in the literature. He cannot be expected to give an opinion on articles slapped down in front of him. Some of those articles might have been the very ones he rejected in his search. some of them may have had only the barest passing reference to the subject. If indeed any of them truly refuted Behe's points, it would mean that the article was unknown to him at the time of his testimony. It is his responsibility to peruse them now, but not during his testimony. You keep saying that everyone is lying. Behe, Spetner. I think the dialogue is not on that low a level.

I'll of course try to give the immunity thing a go, but that is just one more thing to pile on. But you seem to have high hopes for it...

When I say I have read Dembski's articles, I mean I have not read any of them which rely on his math principles. I have a familiarity with his probability bound, but that's all. Not all his writings depend upon his math.

Quote
What if the creationists purporting to critique the biologists
But some of them ARE biologists, and some of them are agnostics - really! They could accept evolution easily. They could certainly be deists.

If you are going to say (and you did) that personal motive drives their conclusions, then I can only point out as I already have done that no one is immune and

The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living!

No matter who you are!

The garbage at the disco inst - that was an article about how most people in Ohio want ID covered in school - it was not saying that because most people want it they are correct in an objective sense about evolution.

Quote
Forgive me, but the two ballgames look pretty similar to me.
Oh,yeah? Well then our problems are solved. NDE is true for you, and young earth creation is true for scordova, and a new-age pantheistic consciousness god for me - and we're all correct.

Quote
(Avo: ) I have wondered this, and I don't have the answer. Look, ...a human being is floating in the endless black without a compass or coordinate.
And there are two kinds of people in this world. A tiny minority who have noticed this, and the rest who haven't thought about it.
Now, don't tell me; let me guess: which category does Avocreationist fall into? And is one's opinion of ID, or creationism in general, correlated with which group one falls into?
 No. Not at all. You asked me an ultimate truth-type question, and I gave you the straight dope. We're in dire straights here. Actually, belonging to a religion would be a hindrance to seeing this.

Influenza bacteria was just not thinking. Bird - I bought his book 'cause I heard of it. I wasn't aware of his connections but while reading I suspected he might be connected with them due to using the same notation to show that a quote is not from a creationist.

Evidence for a disembodied intelligence or a 'spiritual' aspect to reality - there's more than you might think but there's just no time.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,14:25   

Quote
there's more than you might think but there's just no time.


hey this is YOUR thread, eh.

you have as much time as you want.

based on your current level of knowledge of the topics at hand, I predict it will take you about a year to come to any coherent reckoning.

I'll check back then.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,14:38   

Quote
Jon and others seem to say that in all the ID writings, they have not found a good argument.

You need to work on that reading comprehension.  Arguments have not been mentioned.  Evidence has.  We have found none of the evidence for ID, which you claimed exists, and I note you still haven't proffered any evidence. Evidence.  "Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else"

Of course, we haven't found a good argument for ID either, but that's another story.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,15:02   

Quote
Quote
Im sure mathematicians will hate me for saying that, but in biology all that matters is that it can be proved to work,
Much in NDE is also unproved.
Ill rephrase: in biology all that matters when you have a mathematical system that makes predictions is that it can be proved to work. I write programs that make predicitons based on biologial data, and it doesnt matter how good or bad the maths is, you have to prove that your method works on real data, has Dembski done this? I am not saying his method is rubbish, but I am saying he has not proved it. Until then it is not evidence for design.

Quote
But that IS the problem. In biology, everything has to interface perfectly.

No it doesn't. I think ths is a big part of the problem and the confusion, the assumtion that these system are perfect. A lot of these things are 'cobbled together' very crudely by any standards. It is often obvious to us how improvements could be made. In regards to how cooption works, you have to extrapolate to thousands or millions of members of a population, and maybe only one needs the proteins with the right mutation to come together (which are ussually floating around in solution, bumping into each other). When most people use analogies like parts in a garage, scrap in a junkyard etc it fails to take into account the nature of protein structure. They are often very malleable, and a small change can alter the biological function but still leave an active protein. For example in the flagellum we may say that removng one protein will cause the system to cease functioning, but we are making the assumption that the other proteins in the system were the same when this one was added. This is very unlikely to be the case, so evolution would predict that we see flagellum in other bacteria with parts missing, where the proteins that they would interact with are different, and that is what we see (and im not referring to the secretory system, there are many other examples).

Quote
Behe did his search of the literature and he testified that there were no good pathways in the literature.
I will have to find the link but there is a quote from Behe where he says that the evidence that would convince him involves a detailed step by step account of the pathway involving a list of individual mutations and time periods in which they occured. This is of course currently impossible for any system, including those that he accepts did evolve, such as haemoglobin. I dont think Behe is lying, and i think he may have read some of the articles, especially as there are books on the subject. But no one is attempting to produce an explenation that will satisfy him as it is unessecary as far as most scientists are concerned.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,16:04   

OK, I'm most of the way throgh with the Miller side of the argument and I will be back tomorrow night.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2006,20:08   

Ok....once again im drunk

Quote
Yes, this is the problem exactly. We are discussing living systems that reproduce. If not for that, there wouldn't be confusion.


OK....you missed the point.  If you point to a watch and say....this is obviously designed....you are using everyone's knowledge that a watch is designed.

If you point to an ocean, and say "this is obviously designed", everyone will laugh at you.  No one has ever seen a "designed" ocean.  In a million years if aliens land on earth...and they find the ruins that were Mount Rushmore....do you think the design will be obvious to them?

You cannot point to complexity and say...."this is designed"...pi is incredibly complex....is it designed?

The designer couldnt make pi=3?

BTW....sorry if I offended you....I wasnt trying to be rude...I was just trying to lighten the mood

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2006,03:43   

Quote
Unfortunately, the perfect hand of bridge involves all four players getting a full suit. I specified that!
Yeah, I saw that. I assumed that you were making a slip of the keyboard, because, after all, a "hand" is a "hand", No? In any case, if the whole thing turns on a ridiculous technicality like that, don't you think you - and Spetner - have kind of missed the whole point?
Quote
I took Spetner's word for it in the sense that ...
"in the sense that I was determined he just had to be right; after all, he was telling me what I already knew!".
Quote
And I have you folks to help me out. If he is way off, I will personally write to him.
Well, what if he's just grasping at a far-fetched straw to dismiss a perfectly sensible illustration? Will you continue to stand by your man?

Quote
"I don't see how" (X) occured is just not a convincing argument
Quote
Sure, but they say a lot more than that.
See, this would have been your golden opportunity to reference something that doesn't amount to a lot of words saying "I don't see how (X) occurred". But no.

Quote

It's when we start specifying scientifically - indeed, epistemologically - meaningless candidates (e.g. a "disembodied intelligence", "supernatural agency", "The Designer") that you lose me.
Quote
I'm sorry about that and I sympathize. But look closely at what Jeannot said on the pissant thread...
Oh, that's a good idea. Don't deal with what I wrote. Deflect the conversation with what someone else said, which may or may not have anything to do with anything, or may contain some technical loophole, like fudging the difference between a "hand" and a "deal", you can try to wriggle through. How about you just deal with what I wrote?

Quote
I'll of course try to give the immunity thing a go, but that is just one more thing to pile on. But you seem to have high hopes for it...
Quite the contrary. I'm certain that you will find some reason justifying Behe's willful ignorance despite any amount of evidence. The point is not for Behe to digest 59 articles while sitting in front of the judge. The point is that Behe has willfully ignored, and will continue to willfully ignore, any and all evidence that proves him wrong.

Quote
You keep saying that everyone is lying. Behe, Spetner. I think the dialogue is not on that low a level.
I do? Where do I say that?

Quote
(Russell: ) Forgive me, but the two ballgames [postmodernism and thinking the mere statement of an alternate view renders it equally valid] look pretty similar to me.
Quote
(Avo: ) Oh,yeah? Well then our problems are solved. NDE is true for you, and young earth creation is true for scordova, and a new-age pantheistic consciousness god for me - and we're all correct.
'nuff said.

Quote
(Avo: ) I have wondered this, and I don't have the answer. Look, ...a human being is floating in the endless black without a compass or coordinate.
And there are two kinds of people in this world. A tiny minority who have noticed this, and the rest who haven't thought about it.
Quote
(Russell: ) Now, don't tell me; let me guess: which category does Avocreationist fall into? And is one's opinion of ID, or creationism in general, correlated with which group one falls into?
Quote
(Avo: ) No. Not at all. You asked me an ultimate truth-type question, and I gave you the straight dope. We're in dire straights here.
Of all the ways people bisect the human population  into us vs. them, I think perhaps the most pernicious is "the tiny enlightened minority" vs. "the benighted masses".

Quote
(Avo: )Evidence for a disembodied intelligence or a 'spiritual' aspect to reality - there's more than you might think but there's just no time.
Quote
(Annie: )"The sun'll come out
Tomorrow...


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2006,07:11   

:06-->
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 17 2006,20:06)
She says ID is unscientific because-
"First, it requires a programmer that could be supernatural, which is not falsifiable,"

And so this is a kind of circle that is going on. If the scientist decides that evidence simply cannot point to the supernatural, even indirectly, then what are we to do if our universe was indeed caused by an intelligence or self-existing entity? Science would forever bar itself from discovering truth.

You don't quite understand what "falsifiable" means.

It doesn't mean we cannot prove the existence of a supernatural, it means that we cannot disprove (falsify) it.

Examples: if we find some clear hidden message in our Junk DNA (a paragraph from the Genesis or whatever), if we find this kind of message written on the rocks of Mars... these could be seen as evidence of God.
However, you will never provide a natural fact that could disprove the existence of a supernatural. Therefore your theory involving a supernatural (ID) is not falsifiable because absolutely anything could support it.

BTW, I'm not a woman. Jean is a French masculine name, Jeannot is a common nickname (like Johnny for John).  ;)

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2006,07:54   

Quote
Russ, how could [Dawkins] have done the calculation and then said it would happen from time to time and be nothing to write home about?
I have to say that, since I don't play bridge, when I read The Blind Watchmaker, I more or less substituted "royal flush" for "perfect hand of bridge", took his point, and moved on. I didn't realize that, by pure logic, I could have there and then deduced that he was:

EITHER
(1) completely clueless about probability,
OR
(2) intentionally lying through his teeth,

in which case I would have immediately put aside his book and picked up a totally objective and absolutely credible author like Spetner.

You don't sense just a trace of egg on your face over this? Or - to switch metaphors - how dead does this horse have to be before you ask me to stop beating it?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2006,08:16   

or - more to the point - before you abandon your efforts at CPR?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2006,10:25   

Quote
(avo: ) You keep saying that everyone is lying. Behe, Spetner. I think the dialogue is not on that low a level.
Quote
(Russell: ) I do? Where do I say that?
Was it not you, come to think of it, who thought Dawkins had to be (A) incompetent or (B) dishonest?
Seeing that Dawkins was, in fact, right and Spetner was, in fact, wrong - I at least grant Spetner the possibility of being "not exactly a straight-talking guy".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,08:10   

Russ,

I'm finding your reaction to the bridge hand question pretty unsupportable, way over the top.

We did not miss the point. Dawkins made a simple statement  of chance and probability that was false, and he made it precisely to illustrate the point that it failed to illustrate. It illustrated indeed the opposite. His example if anything strengthens the argument he was trying to refute. Since the calculation is not one of very advanced math, and since Dawkins should certainly have spent a fair amount of time pondering exactly what chance can and cannot do, I find it pretty odd.

I cannot understand your calling it a ridiculous technicality. Dawkins gave the scenario and it doesn't work. Someone does the calculations and that is a ridiculous technicality? So it is fine to talk in terms of big numbers, and in terms of people not having a good instinct for really big numbers, and to use the really big number (time) to prove that improbable events, given enough time, will occur - but to actually calculate the probability is a ridiculous technicality?

I don't see a 3rd possibility to the two I mentioned.

Jeannot,

I see your point. But what are we to do if evidence does point to design. We can leave it at that without delving into what you call the supernatural (which does not exist in my book).
If design = supernatural, and supernatural= nonscientific then we have a problem if evidence points toward design.

If the supernatural can be neither proved nor disproved, does that mean physical things cannot demonstrate design?

Quote

You cannot point to complexity and say...."this is designed".
May we can. Maybe we live in a coherent and comprehensible universe after all.

Puck,

Yes, everyone knows a watch is designed, but that is not the only reason we can infer it. We could find strange objects and know they were designed. If Mt. Rushmore in the future loses its discernable features then of course it no longer functions as an example of design, any more than a dead and decaying cell would be.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,08:40   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 19 2006,14:10)
But what are we to do if evidence does point to design.

We'll look at that issue if and when someone comes up with some evidence that points to design.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,08:46   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 19 2006,14:10)
Jeannot,

I see your point. But what are we to do if evidence does point to design.
...
If design = supernatural, and supernatural= nonscientific then we have a problem if evidence points toward design.

As far as we know, nothing in biology points to design. The DI has yet to provide some results that prove irreducible complexity.

If we find evidence for design, the first thing to do is to search for the designer.

Design != supernatural, however design = intelligence.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,08:58   

Quote
We could find strange objects and know they were designed


Really???

Give me an example of an object that you could determine was designed without being familiar with the object.

Let me explain....flint arrow heads are designed...we know they are designed because we know we used to make flint arrowheads.

Give me an example of an object that you know is designed without having familiarity with the object.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,09:32   

Quote
I'm finding your reaction to the bridge hand question pretty unsupportable, way over the top.

We did not miss the point. Dawkins made a simple statement  of chance and probability that was false, and he made it precisely to illustrate the point that it failed to illustrate. It illustrated indeed the opposite. His example if anything strengthens the argument he was trying to refute. Since the calculation is not one of very advanced math, and since Dawkins should certainly have spent a fair amount of time pondering exactly what chance can and cannot do, I find it pretty odd.


Alright....lets begin by assuming that both Russel and Dawkins assumed that Spetner meant a "perfect hand" of bridge and not a "perfect deal".

You are indeed correct Avo, Spetner did get his calculations somewhat correct.....You would not normally use probability in this way.  Your very old individual would have 1: 4 x 10^28 odds of getting a perfect deal every time.  He might get his perfect deal on the first deal...even though the odds are very much against it.  He would, however, have the exact same odds of getting a "perfect deal" on the second hand, and on the third.  His odds would not diminish or increase with repetition.  If you believe diminishing odds with repetition then you are committing what is commonly known as the "gambler's fallacy".

Russel and Dawkins however took Spetner literally to refer to a "perfect hand" of bridge....and a hand only refers to the cards dealt to one player.  You should, at least, forgive them for this misunderstanding.

The point, however, is still perfectly valid.  If the probability exists that something could occur and it is given a very large number of trials, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it could happen.

Avo, a royal flush in poker is very rare in a 5 card stud game.  If, however, you are dealt a perfect flush....no one would suggest that the odds make such a hand impossible.  Yes, you were very lucky, but the mere fact that it is improbable does not mean that is does not occur.

This is the point of the entire "perfect bridge hand disccusion".  Spetner is trying to suggest that while a chance exists for such an occurence, that the high improbability makes it impossible.  Dawkins is trying to demonstrate that if the possibility exists....then you must accept that it could potentially occur.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,13:22   

Not to mention that any specified hand is just as unlikely as any other - but every deal manages to produce some of them anyway, in spite of the fact that any given one of them is unlikely in the extreme.

Henry

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,13:39   

Quote
Alright....lets begin by assuming that both Russel and Dawkins assumed that Spetner meant a "perfect hand" of bridge and not a "perfect deal".
Since Spetner was criticizing what Dawkins had written, I don't think it was incumbent upon Dawkins to parse Spetner's future words! Rather, it's Spetner's duty to fairly represent what he's criticizing: what Dawkins wrote. And Dawkins wrote "hand", not "deal".
Quote
Russel and Dawkins however took Spetner literally to refer to a "perfect hand" of bridge....and a hand only refers to the cards dealt to one player. You should, at least, forgive them for this misunderstanding.
Misunderstanding? What misunderstanding? What does a "hand" in a card game mean? Why should I not take it literally? As I said, I don't play bridge -which is why I had to ask what constitutes a "perfect hand". But in every card game I'm familiar with, a "hand" is what a player holds. Is that not true in bridge? The total distribution of the whole deck would be called a "deal". Am I wrong? Dawkins specifically referred to "hand", not "deal". (Blind Watchmaker, page 162). If there's any "misinterpretation" it's Spetner's and Avo's.
Quote
We did not miss the point. Dawkins made a simple statement of chance and probability that was false.
OK. Quote me the exact words that Dawkins wrote that were false.
Quote
You are indeed correct Avo, Spetner did get his calculations somewhat correct.....You would not normally use probability in this way. Your very old individual would have 1: 4 x 10^28 odds of getting a perfect deal every* time.
(emphasis mine, and *I think PuckSR meant "each" time, not "every" time.)
But aside from that, show me how you get that number - even for a perfect deal. Dawkins himself worked out the odds for a perfect deal in a passage separate from the long-lived alien scenario. (He whimsically suggests calling the number he gets a "dealion" - not, incidentally, a "handion"). I confirmed his calculation, using exactly the logic I showed you earlier for a perfect hand. I don't have the number here, but it was about 1:2.3 x 10^27. So I'm not even sure Spetner got the deal number right. If you read what Dawkins actually wrote, though, not what Avo said that Spetner said that he wrote, I see no reason to suspect that he meant "deal" when he specifically wrote "hand".

Quote
I cannot understand your calling it a ridiculous technicality. Dawkins gave the scenario and it doesn't work. ... but to actually calculate the probability is a ridiculous technicality?
Again, you'll have to show me how Dawkins's scenario "doesn't work". But leaving that aside for the moment, what we have here is a very clear example of avo either:

(1) having reading comprehension problems
(2) being dishonest, or
(3) being "not exactly a straight-talking guy".

(My money's on #3)

How can you possibly construe anything I wrote to mean that I considered the performance of the calculation a "ridiculous technicality"? Is there any confusion at all in what I wrote that I was referring to the substitution of the word "deal" for the word "hand"? That's the ridiculous technicality, and - frankly - I think it's pretty generous to call it a that, because it seems to me that confusing the two is pretty self-servingly far-fetched.

So, as it happens, I don't see any problem with Dawkins's scenario, but even if there were one the point remains stunningly simple and clear: the probability of something "unlikely" occurring is dramatically affected by how much time is available.
Quote
Dawkins is trying to demonstrate that if the possibility exists....then you must accept that it could potentially occur.
ummm... should I not?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,13:50   

I have to say, I am enjoying Avo's continued mouth-to-mouth heroics on this dead horse! It's such a stark case of defending the indefensible.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,14:46   

MY bad....i thought Dawkins was criticizing Spetner...

That should explain most of my post

Of course, Spetner could have made the odds even worse....if he had specified that the hands were dealt in order, or that the suits had to proceed in a certain order.

The funny thing Avo, is that in this case we all know what cards we have and what hands we are trying to achieve.  You cannot provide either of those details when trying to calculate the complexity of life.  I suppose you could specify the current state of all life, but why deny alternate paths?  That would be like artificially increasing your odds by requiring that the hands are dealt in numerical order.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,15:52   

Quote
Dawkins is trying to demonstrate that if the possibility exists....then you must accept that it could potentially occur.
Oops. I accidentally ascribed that to Avo, and thought he was implying otherwise. In fact it was PuckSR, stating the obvious.

Quote
(Avo: ) I don't see a 3rd possibility to the two I mentioned.
i.e. incompetence or dishonesty. OK. Now that I hope it's clear that the gaffe was Spetner's, not Dawkins's: what's your verdict?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,18:07   

Hmmm. Now that I'm home, and have my numbers in front of me, I see that I do differ from Dawkins in my calculation of the odds of the perfect deal. (I continue to stand by my calculation, above, for the perfect hand.)

Dawkins calculates the odds of the perfect deal are 1:2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 while I get 1:2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000.

The logic being: the first card has a 52/52 chance of being a suit, the second has a 39/51 chance of being a different suit, the third a 26/50 chance of being yet another, and the fourth a 13/49 chance of being different from the previous 3. From then on, the next 4 cards have a 12/48, 12/47, 12/46, and 12/45 chance of matching each players original suit, then 11/44, 11/43, 11/42, 11/40, and so on down to the last card. So the odds are 1:52!/(52x39x26x13x(12! )^4) = 1:2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,560,000

Why, exactly, Dawkins subtracted 1 from that number, I don't know. But I'm willing to dismiss it as inconsequential. (I'm generous that way.)

What was Spetner's result? (For the perfect deal, that is; we've already established he didn't calculate the odds for the perfect hand, as was specified in the "long-lived alien" scenario.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,18:55   

Russell,
Re "Dawkins calculates the odds of the perfect deal are [...] "

Those values appear to agree to about 24 digits, or about 80 significant bits. Wonder if that's the limit of precision on either his or your computer (or both)?

Henry

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2006,20:04   

Quote
Why, exactly, Dawkins subtracted 1 from that number, I don't know.
D'oh! Of course. A "1 in 10 chance" is the same thing as "odds of 1:9". Turns out Dawkins & I agree right down to the last unit. So what's Spetner's number?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,05:32   

Hey, this is intriguing. Getting impatient for Avo's explication of Spetner's gaffe, I did a little googling and came across this:, posted by someone using the nom de 'nette "onething"
Quote
Tika mentions personal incredulity. This one of Dawkins favorite mocking points. And Darwinists in general constantly assure us that we have a problem understanding big numbers. Discussing the probability of life originating, Dawkins said we should drop our intuitive feeling for chance. He said we should imagine a hypothetical long-lived alien of millions of years. This alien might from time to time see a perfect hand of bridge. It would be nothing to write home about. Yet he never bothered to do the calculation, which turns out to be 4.47 X 10 -28., according to Spetner, Not By Chance.

And he says it is an easy, straightforward calculation. So, playing 100 hands of bridge per day for 100 million years, said alien has a chance of one in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge in his lifetime.

This has been bothering my mind for months now. Dawkins didnt make the calculation, and it is one that an advanced high-schooler could probably make. He wasnt caught off guard, speaking off the cuff. It was in his book.

I keep asking myself, is Dawkins dishonest, or can it be he actually believed what he wrote? Because if he did, it means that he has no feeling for chance or probability, and this is truly worrisome. Dawkins, after all, is both Britains leading intellectual, and the Grand Wizard of the Public Understanding of Science, and he is a professor at a famous university, and he writes books defending evolution.

I would have to assume that a person with a Ph.D in any science field would have some education in math and be able to do probability calculations. Probability difficulties are one of the greatest detractions from evolution theory. And he throws out comments like that about a bridge playing alien, but doesnt bother to actually calculate and see if he is right.

And people like me are told that we have no feeling for the great periods of time that evolution calls for, and that we should be ashamed of making arguments about personal incredulity (although it is alright for them to be incredulous about any divine being). But if Dawkins had an adequate feeling about probability, he would know when to check his calculations.

He did not check, which means he is operating in a fantastical mode of thinking. He has no feel for it. Since Darwinism relies on the miraculous, they must have miraculous entities, albeit those entities cannot be living or intelligent. Time and chance are the deities, as others have noted. No wonder they find incredulity offensive, it is unseemly to question a deity.

I believe in God, but not in miracles.
So, either Avo & onething are one person, spreading the same uninformed blather over the net, or they're both part of an anti-evo network promulgating talking points without bothering to reword or investigate, or - most bizarrely - without bothering to check the very calculations they point out are so elementary!

Care to shed some light on this, Avo?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,07:53   

I am the same person. I wrote that not so long ago, shortly after reading about it.

It appears from my own reading on the net, in which I found a similar conversation to ours, that Dawkins on about two pages (160 and 161if I remember) mentioned both a perfect hand and a perfect deal. It is unclear then, what he meant. I don't have Dawkins book myself. So I would say that Spetner took it to mean a perfect deal. was Dawkins discussing two different points using an almost identical analogy?

Anyway, I now have the answer to a question I was asked at least a week ago - why was I unsatisfed with Miller's answer to the IC of the flagellum. It's about 2-3 pages so I hope that is OK.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,08:38   

Quote
It appears from my own reading on the net that Dawkins ... mentioned both a perfect hand and a perfect deal. It is unclear then, what he meant. I don't have Dawkins book myself. So I would say that Spetner took it to mean a perfect deal. was Dawkins discussing two different points using an almost identical analogy?
OK. I'm starting to feel some pity now, so I don't mean to be too harsh here. Please read this in that spirit.

You have claimed, in multiple places, that Dawkins must be either incompetent or dishonest. You also claimed, in multiple places, that Dawkins never did the calculation. But I just quoted you the number he got (the odds of a perfect deal), repeated the calculation, and got the same number. You admit now that you've never actually read what he wrote, but repeat, in high indignation, how he never bothered to do the calculation, and that this demonstrates his incompetence and/or dishonesty!

Do you see how some not necessarily malevolent people might detect a deviation from rigorous objectivity there?

Should we ascribe that lack of objectivity to you, or to Spetner, or to both?

Yes, I can see how it might be "unclear what he meant" - if your only source of information is his creationist critic. But when I actually read the actual book, it didn't strike me as unclear at all.

No, Dawkins was not using an almost identical analogy to make two unrelated points. He was using the game of bridge as a "theme" illustrating some not very controversial observations on the relationship between rare events and human expectations. If Spetner overlooked the fact that, on one page, he used the words "perfect deal" AND reported the odds against it, then on another page, after introducing the long-lived alien, used the words "perfect hand", then Spetner either consciously or unconsciously made a mistake. And published it in a book. And - so far as I know - never bothered to correct fresh-faced disciples such as yourself when they made themselves look foolish by publicly quoting him.

So - though I'm not sure I agree with you that these kinds of errors can be chalked up with absolute certainty to either incompetence or dishonesty - I accept that that is your view, and I ask you: what's your verdict on Spetner?

I strongly urge you, next time you're ready to play loyal footsoldier in the culture wars, to check out the actual words of the character you're assassinating. And to excercise a modicum of skepticism about the motives of the "officers".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,08:58   

This is a sort of run-on commentary:
Miller The Flagellum Unspun
*Uses personal incredulity argument. Calls it sentiment. One demerit.
*Elevates imagination. Says that when a person cannot imagine something, it is a personal statement about their limitations. So lack of imagination is a personal failing. Im going to agree that imagination can be important for example Einsteins theories of relativity but imagination needs to lead to hard evidence. And there is more than one kind of imagination. Yes, imagination is a wonderful thing, but why does this branch of science seem so dependent upon it?

*States that the ID designer must act outside the laws of nature.  This is not necessarily true and in fact I consider such notions absurd. Yet Millers God does do so occasionally.
*Miller states the flagellum is not IC because the Type III secretory system, which exists in other bacteria, contains similar proteins to those found in the base of the flagellum, and was probably co-opted to form the flagellum.
This really is the sum of his argument right here. The flagellum has 30-40 proteins, of which 10 are homologous with the type III system. (Unfortunately, that argument is now obsolete, being largely abandoned in favor of the idea that the Type III system is actually devolved from the flagellum instead. Mike Genes reasons why the Type III is not a precursor was removed for brevity but is available) However, the real problem with Millers argument is that he thought the Type III system was ever much of a refutation in the first place.

*Next, Miller states evolution is opportunistic and able to mix and match proteins. This is something I dont understand and I invite enlightenment. My question basically revolves around: how does the information get into the genome to code at the right time and place for some sort of widget that is in use elsewhere. As Behe shows, in the cell everything is tightly controlled. Things arent out of place and hanging out looking for work. Just because various pieces are lying around in the garage, to make a functional system out of them requires insight, especially if 3 or more are to be put together at once. But even if we add only one new piece to an existing structure, how does this occur? Sure, the piece itself is available, and somewhere in the genome is the code to create it, but that still leaves the question of rearranging it to a new place. And it must fit exactly or be modified to do so. From Dembskis response, quoting Bracht, Old interfaces and binding sites must be removed and new ones must be created.

*Then he says that because the Type 3 exists, and since that involved use of 10 proteins, and since it is itself functional, this disproves Behes contention that no parts of the flagellum can be removed without loss of function. Say what? Is he mixing up arguments here? The type 3 system is functional as a type 3 system and is also similar to the base of the flagellum, but if you remove that base, the flagellum is indeed nonfunctional. But Miller argues that if you remove a component the Type 3 and since it has a function of its own (which is arguably not true since the two are only homologous) that this disproves the IC of the flagellum.  

I.e., the existence of the Type 3 disproves that the flagellum must be fully assembled before any part can be functional. To me, this completely misses the point and is a hollow victory. If this is important to Behes thesis, I am unaware of it. The main point of IC is that the parts all are necessary to the flagellum.
He thinks he has accounted for a subset of the flagellum (the type 3 unit) but that tells us exactly nothing about how the entire flagellar system got together with its 30-40 proteins. So Miller has 10 accounted for and that apparently works for him.
*He says for one IC system to contain another is contra the IC argument. He says if the flagellum contains smaller functional units it is by definition not IC.
It seems to me that it doesnt matter, although IC is meant to meet Darwins challenge that if a system could be found which could not be built upon numerous, slight, successive modifications then Darwinism is refuted. However, I see no reason why one of those slight modifications couldnt be a functional set from another system. And if it cant, this is not against ID, but against Darwinism.
So right here we have 3 problems:
1.The Type 3 system probably is not a prior component that got co-opted.
2.Even if it was, Miller makes not even an effort to account for the other 20 or more proteins, and does not worry about it, apparently being satisfied with a semantic victory.
3.It certainly doesnt strengthen Darwins argument for slight and successive modifications to insist that IC systems can have been cobbled together from units that originally served other purposes. In any case, it is improbable for them to get together whether by direct or indirect routes.

Behe and Dembski both argue that it is unlikely for evolution to cobble together an IC system, whether each protein component is added one by one, or if some additions consist of an entire group of proteins which are co-opted, such as the Type 3 system.

Of course, since we have no picture at all of the history of the flagellum, we cannot really know what sort of steps might have led to it, and whether it started out with its first components doing something else entirely, and at what point in the step-by-step process motility became the function. Were there 30 steps? 12? Did it become a motility device after 5 reincarnations? 10? The final step only?

If it was a step by step process toward motility, as per fish eyes paper ideal, and if at one point the Type 3 was taken in as a whole, I see no problem with that. On the other hand, if there were, say, 10 steps, and in each step a novel use was made by adding a widget and each time the growing-toward-flagellum had a completely different function until finally it became a flagellum well! Wouldnt that be something. And what I want to know is if a part gets co-opted, does that part also continue to function in the old way? I mean, it would still be needed for whatever it used to do right? So does production of that widget get doubled in the genome and built at two different places?

*Next, Miller states that Dembski has exaggerated the difficulties of the components coming together by dividing the process up into origination, localization (getting them together in the cell) and configuration (assembly). He points out that once you have a protein sequence, it self-assembles. There is some truth to this, but the problems of matching interfaces and incorporating the co-options into the blueprints are real. I am not sure if all proteins self-assemble, but at any rate the putting together of some systems require much chaperoning, and the assembly of the flagellum is one such. According to Mike Gene (and I'll look this up if anyone is intersted) the assembly of the flagellum may itself be an IC process.  

*Now, Miller states that Dembskis probability calculations regarding the likelihood of 30 or more proteins spontaneiously assembling themselves is too low because no one really thinks a flagellum has to be gotten together that way. He says that Dembski has ignored that the type 3 system contains nearly one third of the needed proteins.

It is surprising, however, that Miller finds this to be of more than small help. And keep in mind that the Type 3 system is now largely abandoned as a hopeful precursor. He has no other argument for how the entire thing would get together other than to say that Demski has followed a faulty reasoning by assuming that he can analyze the likelihood of the flagellum assembling itself since he has not taken into account that there might be unthought-of ways for it to do so. Actually, Dembski does acknowledge that very thing, but certainly this is an argument from ignorance! Also, it is an appeal for patience.

Miller is saying that although we indeed have absolutely no idea how it could get together, we should still assume that it could do so somehow, because if we are skeptical of that, then we are operating from a priori assumptions (that it can't). This argument, to me, goes both ways. It is great to keep in mind how surprising new knowledge can be, but at the same time, it is an appeal not to use the tols we now have to make coherent sense of the world. It is to say we really have no tools to evaluate how nature works, how natural law works, how chance and probability work, how intelligence interacts with reality.

*Next he mentions the complex Krebs cycle, which apparently is made up of proteins that also exist elsewhere in the cell. He quotes a paper which states it is a clear case of opportunism. In fact, in support of opportunism he quotes someone named Jacob as saying that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch but works with what already exists. Now here we have a problem. For somewhere, sometime, novelty must occur. And we really dont know how it does. And Jacob also assures us that the Krebs cycle is the best chemically possible design.

*Miller now cites Dolittles refutation of the blood clotting cascade, but I have read the response to it and I am convinced that Dolittle has done little.

The take home lesson here is that there is way too much that we don't know about how life really works.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,09:02   

Did Dawkins give the calculations for the perfect deal? What was it?

If what you say is true, I think Spetner misunderstood him.

I never indicated I had read it. I gave an accurate description of what Spetner wrote.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,09:33   

Quote
The take home lesson here is that there is way too much that we don't know about how life really works.

Both sides can agree on that much. It's the corollary to the general rule on which we are divided.

To wit: The IDer takes this as an assertion of the failings of the Darwinian paradigm: an admission of ignorance! The smell of blood in the water!

The corollary for ID is that our ignorance is total and irremediable. A call for the non-explanation that is IDCreationism. Goddidit.

The corollary for the evolutionist is that there is more to learn. Having identified the TTSS as a possible precursor is all that need be done to put the supposed example of  an IC system to bed. Because the IC argument demands that there be no such identifiable possible precursor. It's the logic of this argument that leads to Behe's goalpost shifting around the whole issue of the flagellum.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,09:47   

Quote
Did Dawkins give the calculations for the perfect deal? What was it?
I told you he gave the result. I quoted it, to 27 decimal places of accuracy: 1:2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999. I showed you how I calculated it. Dawkins only reported the number (the details of the calculation were not relevant, and indeed would have been distracting to the point he was making). But, since he got the same number I did - to 27 decimal places of accuracy - I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that, yes, he actually did the calculation, rather than making a lucky guess. I believe you'll find that Spetner's number is just the reciprocal of it. (Odds against X = 1/(probability of X) ).

So, according to your view of things, if Spetner "misunderstood", he must be either incompetent or dishonest. Which is it?
Quote
I never indicated I had read it. I gave an accurate description of what Spetner wrote.
And, as I hope you realize by now, that wasn't good enough.

Your dissection of the flagellum discussion looks as if you have approached it with the same degree of open-mindedness with which you approached the bridge game statistics. So I'm going to take a pass, for now, on trying to correct your errors, hoping that either someone else will take a turn at it, or that I will be busy enough with more productive enterprises that your failure to understand takes its rightful place as the least of my problems.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,11:41   

Avo-

You completely missed the point of both Behe, Dembski, and Miller.
I dont believe that an incredibly long and detailed post would be very fruitful, so I will simply provide a summarized post.

1)Of course all components of a system are necessary for that system to be that system.  The classic example:  A mousetrap.  The argument from the ID crowd is that the parts of a mousetrap are non-functional.  The argument from the 'Evolutionist' crowd is that they are functional.  No one claims that a mouse trap sans spring is still a mousetrap.  They are arguing that a mousetrap sans spring is either useless or useful.

2)  The true chronological order of development is unimportant for almost everything.(unless your DaveScot).  A car is based on several simple principles....Boyle's Law, the concept of the wheel, simple machines(gears)...etc.  No one actually needs to explain the chronological development of all of the technology of the car to assume that it 'evolved' from these other concepts.  You might claim that the concept of the wheel predated the concept of pressure systems.  Further anthropological evidence might discover that the concept of steam energy predated the wheel.  It really isnt important to the concept of automotive evolution.

3)  You were incredibly insulting regarding the entire Spetner Vs. Dawkins argument.  You should apologize profusely, you were clearly misinformed....

4) Russel has already tried to explain, but I am afraid you might have missed the point.  You seem incredibly concerned that the Theory of Evolution provide detailed information regarding the evolution of organisms.  You seem to ignore the fact that ID cannot provide any of this information either.  ID proponents cannot even agree on how organisms came to be in existence.  The Theory of Gravity does not explain why masses are attracted to each other.  It simply explains that they are attracted and  describes the attraction.  I keep mentioning the theory of gravity because it draws so many parallels with evolution.

We do not know why gravity works
We have only observed gravity on a small scale
We base almost all of our understanding on empirical evidence
They are both used to refute theistic ideas

Avo, if you have any problems with any of my points, please refer back to the number, and I will provide a far more detailed explanation.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,01:03   

I think you guys are waisting your time with Avo. "Nobody is as deaf as those who do not want to hear". He is not here to listen... nothing you say has any weight with him.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,02:28   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,18:25)
Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.

Ha ha ha, if you can present evidence FOR ID, then you would be the first. I'll be willing to put your name in for any science award you want if you can present any actual evidence for ID.
Quote
Oh my, your objectivity is showing.

And your subjectivity is showing. When Dembski makes statements about how science must be consonant with Christ, then he has left the boundaries of science.
Quote
Paleontoogy is not considered Darwinism's strong suit, the field of geology would exist no matter what set of facts it turned up, and medicine is debatable.

Except that paleontology and geology both independently verify evolution. So, by denying evolution, you are saying that the independent verification of those sciences are also in error.
Quote
It [evidence for evolution] looks like projection to me...

Only because you have a priori commitments to your god.
Quote
Oh, it was kindly meant. I wasnt singling them out in particular. It is human nature. There are two motives. One is ego: the desire to be right. And the second is what I mentioned above, the desire to quell the inner void, to convince oneself that one knows anything at all.

Which is why evidence is required. The fact that you and your side can produce none vs. the fact that evolution has over a hundred years of accumulated evidence and peer-reviewed journal articles is a telling point here. Do you think that one person's ego (or even a group of people) is what makes our genetic makeup so similar to that of apes?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,04:42   

Quote
I think you guys are waisting your time with Avo. "Nobody is as deaf as those who do not want to hear". He is not here to listen... nothing you say has any weight with him.
You're probably right. (By the way, I think Avo is actually "she", not "he").

I guess I assume at least some educability on the part of any refugee from UD, and accord some respect to anyone abused by DaveScot. But I admit that's more sentiment than rationality.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,06:55   

Quote
I think you guys are waisting your time with Avo. "Nobody is as deaf as those who do not want to hear". He is not here to listen... nothing you say has any weight with him.


Actually, I think your wrong.  I am not trying to sway Avo's opinion on the matter.  I simply believe that it is my civic duty to attempt to inform Avo of the facts.

I have absolutely no problem with Avo continuing to believe whatever (s)he wishes.  I only hope that in the future Avo avoids false information.

After our conversation with him, I would hope that Avo never again tries to use the example of the bridge hand to call Dawkins dishonest.

I hope he fully understands the concept of IC, and the refutations of it.

I also hope in the future he avoids making arguments and accusations from rather weak source material.

Remember when you were a young person, and you attempted to discuss something with an adult.  We almost all made ridiculous statements, and were exhaustively educated on the inappropriateness of our style and tactics.  I dont really want to change Avo's opinion.  I simply want to raise the level of debate to something that resembles honest and intelligent discourse.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,19:03   

CJ,
Quote
. Having identified the TTSS as a possible precursor is all that need be done to put the supposed example of  an IC system to bed. Because the IC argument demands that there be no such identifiable possible precursor. It's the logic of this argument that leads to Behe's goalpost shifting around the whole issue of the flagellum.
As your response and the rest here indicate, I wasted my time. This is actually beyond astonishing. I am at a mad tea party here. Behe has not moved the goalposts - he has no need to. No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved. I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum?

Russell,

I checked my library and unfortunately, they don't have the book. But I can probably go to the bookstore and have a look. If Spetner screwed up as you say he did, then I will write to him as I said I would.

Oh, you asked so hard for reasons why I am an IDer, but now you haven't the time.

Puck,

I failed to see how any of your points had anything to do with anything that I wrote about the flagellum papers.

GCT,

I know nothing of what Dembski may or may not say about his religious  beliefs. If I see it in context, I might have an opinion. I think science may prove to be consonent with God, but not with particular dogma or religion. If he privately thinks so and says so to a religious group, then that's his business. But as with all people, it is very hard to allow truth to be what it will be, if one has inner desires.

Quote
It [evidence for evolution] looks like projection to me...

Only because you have a priori commitments to your god.
You have twisted this. The projection had nothing to do with evidence, it was about your assessment of the behaviors of the ID crowd that I called projection. Such as being impervious to evidence.

Quote
Which is why evidence is required.  The fact that you and your side can produce none vs. the fact that evolution has over a hundred years of accumulated evidence and peer-reviewed journal articles is a telling point here.  
Well, you must realize that the evidence you speak of is the same evidence that IDists are aware of, and it is no doubt why most of them accept evolution as a slow unfolding of life and one or a few common ancestors (some of them?) but they do not agree with all the interpretations of said evidence.

Quote
Do you think that one person's ego (or even a group of people) is what makes our genetic makeup so similar to that of apes?
I don't get what you're saying here.

I do not agree that paleontology verifies gradualism. But as for geology, I can only say that I never have thought all animals arrived at once or quickly. As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2006,23:45   

Avo wrote
Quote
As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted.


Ah, RM + NS is your ONLY problem then?

We have seen RM, it happens often. We have seen NS, it happens often. We can understand that RM and NS is a VERY plausable explanation for the mechanism of Evolution.

Since we have observed RM + NS, why do you have a problem with it? You would rather go for frontloading? Uh if I can recall Blast got blasted on this theory, since Gartner snakes do no have Cobra Venom genes, and that's just one simple example of why frontloading is BS.

We observe RM, and we observe NS. Have you got ANY observation that is a better candidate for the mechanism?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,02:06   

Quote
Oh, you asked so hard for reasons why I am an IDer, but now you haven't the time.
Huh?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,02:33   

:03-->
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 23 2006,01:03)
GCT,

I know nothing of what Dembski may or may not say about his religious beliefs. If I see it in context, I might have an opinion. I think science may prove to be consonent with God, but not with particular dogma or religion. If he privately thinks so and says so to a religious group, then that's his business. But as with all people, it is very hard to allow truth to be what it will be, if one has inner desires.

I see now. What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic. Nice double standard you've got going there.

Try these links: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html
http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2005....nt.html

Quote
You have twisted this. The projection had nothing to do with evidence, it was about your assessment of the behaviors of the ID crowd that I called projection. Such as being impervious to evidence.
The twisting was not intentional. I did not get your point. I will now answer your charge.

When the ID crowd uses old arguments that Creationists came up with 20+ years ago that have been discarded (and the adherents have admitted that they put the Bible first, science second) then, yes, I would say that's pretty strong evidence that the IDers are impervious to evidence.

Quote
Well, you must realize that the evidence you speak of is the same evidence that IDists are aware of, and it is no doubt why most of them accept evolution as a slow unfolding of life and one or a few common ancestors (some of them?) but they do not agree with all the interpretations of said evidence.

Oh, so IDists use the same evidence, but interpret it differently? OK, let's examine this. What evidence is there that any designer exists? Seriously. All Behe and Dembski, et. al. have done is say that it looks designed to them, so it must be. That, however, is not how science is done. I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses. Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are? What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did. Unfortunately for you, everything and anything is evidence for that idea, and so it is completely useless to us and unscientific.
Quote
I don't get what you're saying here.

You made the statement that scientists accept evolution because they want to be right, that their egos obscure what you find obvious. I was asking you if their egos are to blame for the fact that humans and chimps (and all mammals for that matter) share such genetic similarities.
Quote
I do not agree that paleontology verifies gradualism. But as for geology, I can only say that I never have thought all animals arrived at once or quickly. As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted.

Nice goal post move. Considering that you haven't yet defined what you mean by "gradualism" and that that's not what I said or what I was arguing, I have to conclude that once again you are grasping at straws. Paleontological finds as well as geology both verify the predictions of evolution. We find wonderful transitional fossils at the time periods that make sense. They all verify each other. By denying evolution, you also deny those other fields of science. Period.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,02:37   

Quote
No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved.
No one is saying that we have an exact pathway, especially not to Behes requirements. But based on the understanding we have of the mechanisms of evolution, this is by far the most likely option. There is no part of the flagellum that couldnt have concievably come about by the mechanisms we are aware of. We have to infre our knowledge of the evolution of other protein complexes to this one, if this does not satisfy you then that is just too bad. Behe has to prove that the falgellum couldnt have evolved, and he tries to do so by use of bad analogies and misrepresentation of the nature of biological systems. I am happy to try and explain this, but some of it I did in a previous post in response to your questions about cooption. The flagellum exists in many different configurations in many different bacteria with various different parts missing, in each case the other parts, especially those that 'would interact' are also slightly different. As i said before a small change in a protein can lead to a large change in its functional properties, or vice-versa. To fully understand requires more knowledge about protein structure than i can explain in a couple of paragraphs.

I am sorry if I am coming off sounding like an arrogant scientist, but that is just the problem. I read Darwins black box before I had heard of the Pandas thumb, or the NCSE, or Talk Origins, or the Discovery Institute, and I knew that it was a load of rubbish. To fully appreciate that fact you do need to understand biochemistry and evolution quite well. This is the biggest problem with the whole ID debate, it has made the public distrust scientists, and demand techincal explenations. Do you really think that I do not really believe waht I am saying, or that I am ignoring the evidence for ID even though I see some truth in it?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,03:19   

Behe's ideas are scientifically crap as well as logical crap.  As I've explained before, he is saying that there is no possible way that the flagellum could have evolved (he really means naturalistically BTW).  In order to prove that, he has to show that not only are all known mechanisms are inept to the task, and that all as yet unknown mechanisms of evolution are not up to the task.  Before he can conclude that the flagellum "poofed" into existence, he has to show that it could not have come about naturally, which is impossible to show.  The fact that you have bought into it shows that you have accepted the a priori assumption of god (and therefore violated science) and decided that it must therefore be true.

Now, before you protest that if god exists, then science must search for it because science searches for "truth."  You might want to define what you mean by "truth."  Science strives to best explain the world around us by the best means possible, which may be something quite different from searching for "truth."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,03:36   

If you saw how readily Avo bought Spetner's, um, "not-exactly-straight-talking-guy"ness - despite the easily verified facts - you'll know it's not going to be possible to convince her that Michael "prove to me that mutation X happened at time Y" Behe is full of crap.

Behe's "DBB" was my first introduction to ID also. I'd never heard of the Disco Inst, Phillip Johnson or any of the other ID celebs. But I do have a PhD in biochemistry. And my reaction was "you have to be kidding me!".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,06:41   

Quote
I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum?


Ok....lets clear some things up.

The flagellum was an example of an irreducible complexity(IC) system.  The argument behind IC is that they are examples of systems that cannot be reduced down to simpler parts, and therefore only could have been created by a designer.  

You can think about the mousetrap, or about Paley's watch.  The argument of IC is that none of these systems could exist as any form of subsystem.  
Wikipedia article explaining IC

The type 3 system is an example of a simpler system that could be considered a subsystem of the flagellum.  It may not actually be proof of a previously existing system, but it is proof that the flagellum could function without all of its parts.

There seems to be a misunderstanding AVO
Avo thinks-to prove that a system is not IC, you would have to prove every stage at which the system evolved.  This is nearly impossible, even if we were to try and do this with an organism that we know evolved.
i.e. how did the wheel involve into a harley-davidson motorcycle?

We all know that the basic wheel(and wheeled transportation) is the great-grandfather of the harley, but even the greatest of historians would have a hard time giving you a complete and total time line for its evolution.

Everyone else is simply saying that if you can reduce something to a simpler form, then you have proven that the original was not irreducibly complex.  This seems to make sense, but realize that they are not claiming that a type 3 system proves that the flagellum evolved, only that it proves that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Now going back to my "points", why dont you apologize Avo?  It would show a great deal of goodwill on your part, and it would be the right thing to do.....

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,08:05   

avo responds:
Quote
I wasted my time. This is actually beyond astonishing. I am at a mad tea party here. Behe has not moved the goalposts - he has no need to. No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved. I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum?

What is astonishing is that you persist in accusing us of not reading, not understanding, etc.
What I wrote, what you simply cannot believe you read, is right in line with the mainstream evolutionary response to the application of IC to the bacterial flagellum.
For instance, from Ken Miller:
Quote
The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.

The full article can be found Here.
Honestly, I suggest you find a minute to read it, avo.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,08:26   

Quote
The full article can be found Here
Honestly, I suggest you find a minute to read it, avo.
Just to be clear: you know, don't you, that that's the very article Avo thinks she is critiquing? (I think.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,08:34   

Oh.
errrm, no, I guess I had lost track.
But I see no evidence that she understood what she read, if indeed it's what she's responding to.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2006,09:28   

Avo wrote:
Quote
(Unfortunately, that argument [that E. coli's flagellum evolved from the type III secretory system, or a precursor thereof] is now obsolete, being largely abandoned in favor of the idea that the Type III system is actually devolved from the flagellum instead. Mike Genes reasons why the Type III is not a precursor was removed for brevity but is available)
I'm not up-to-date on current thinking about flagellum evolution. If there are more recent developments not covered here, for instance, I'll have to read up on them.

But it's news to me that the consensus of bacteriologists has shifted to the view that the type III system was derived from the flagellum, and not vice versa. Surely - Avo, having learned from the whole Dawkins/Spetner discussion - surely you're going to cite some reference more compelling than "Mike Gene" said so. Surely, when you say such and such model has been "largely abandoned" - you can cite at least one review of the relevant literature by a relevant scholar of the field to substantiate that claim.

Or does "largely" just mean "by 'Mike Gene' and the ID community"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,08:18   

Puck,

Quote
The funny thing Avo, is that in this case we all know what cards we have and what hands we are trying to achieve.  You cannot provide either of those details when trying to calculate the complexity of life.  I suppose you could specify the current state of all life, but why deny alternate paths?  That would be like artificially increasing your odds by requiring that the hands are dealt in numerical order.

Well, essentially, you are saying that life could have evolved successfullyi n myriad ways. That may or may not be true. According to books like Nature's Destiny, that is not really true. Also, it is not simply a matter of finding a working combo. Life as it is, the cell, when we try to figure out how it could have occurred against the difficulties that it must have surmounted, is difficult to account for. Your argument is better if we speak of some specific protein with its hundreds of amino acids - there might be several other ways it could have been put together to solve its task.

Russell,

Yesterday I went to the bookstore and read through the pages 160-162. Dawkins point was indeed clear enough to me, since he did the calculation and even called it a dealion. So, as I said I would, I have written to Spetner's publisher, who will forward my letter. I do note, however, that you have called Spetner malicious, and I find this a recurring theme in your assessments of various ID authors. I do not see it that way. It is difficult for me to understand how Spetner could have missed what Dawkins wrote, and it sure looks like he skimmed the important part, but it hardly seems safe to make so obvious a blunder when criticizing a well-known work just bcause you feel malicious. Incidentally, Spetner cut Dawkins more slack than I did. He simply said Dawkins made a common mistake.

At the same time, as I watch the two factions speak ill of one another on UD and ATBC, it still seems to me that the level of paranoia is higher here. Then again, the new thread over there about Roe vs Wade is pretty disheartening and I think I am about to just crawl into a cave somewhere and take a break from human nature.

CJ,

Quote
The corollary for ID is that our ignorance is total and irremediable. A call for the non-explanation that is IDCreationism. Goddidit.
Well if you take it that way of course it is annoying. I think that the desire to know and to analyze is far too strong in humans for them to give up trying to figure out how it was done, regardless of whether there is a God or not. And then too, there could be just as many or even more forever unanswerable questions about how evolution happened via the NDE scenario.

Renier,

Quote
Ah, RM + NS is your ONLY problem then?


I think so. I think the fossil record is inadequate, evidence points away from gradualism. Life forms are absolutely connected in some fundamental way, yet I am unconvinced as to how.

I didn't get the bit about garter snakes should have venom genes.

I realize limited time is a problem to show useful mutations that lead to new species, but I find merit in the arguments against mutation as a serious organizational force. And I find it ironic that the mechanism of evolution should be the same one that calls forth some of the greatest intelligence of the cell to avoid.

Quote
I see now.  What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic.  Nice double standard you've got going there.
If Dawkins made a separate case of his atheism and spoke openly of his worldview only to atheist club meetings, it would be the same as what Dembski does. Dembski sees the difference between what is a scientifically viable statement to make versus one that is his inner worldview. That he hopes they do indeed coincide is only rational. Dawkins makes no secret that his atheist worldview is part of his evolution outlook. I cannot be sure but I think he has made statements to the effect that if (his) evolution theory is truly understood, it leaves no room for God and I happen to agree.
***
The thing is, the antievolution arguments have not been discarded, and it doesn't matter how old they are. But if they put the Bible first, that's a problem.

Quote
I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses.  Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are?  What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did.
Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument.

Quote
I was asking you if their egos are to blame for the fact that humans and chimps (and all mammals for that matter) share such genetic similarities.
Is the problem with our egos a result of animal nature? Probably. Not every one who doubts Darwinism thinks every life form was independently created. You know, there are certain body languages used by chimps that are used by humans, and the Catholic church comes to mind. The alpha males gets his hand kissed by the subservient males (not sure about females). The beta males show subservience by adopting a bottom-up posture - again a frequent one in religious as well as reverence-for-king postures required in civilized societies.  So far as I know, and this is very interesting, hunter-gather and other noncivilized societies never engage in that throwback behavior. It is highly undignified to grovel and tribal type peoples would be disgusted to engage in it. And I have a theory about this: civilization represents a psychic trauma from which we have not recovered (and I hope we are going to recover). Because of this psychic trauma, we are confused and are engaging in behaviors that are really very primitive.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,08:43   

Quote
I do note, however, that you have called Spetner malicious, and I find this a recurring theme in your assessments of various ID authors.
I did? Where did I do that once, let alone as a "recurring theme"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,11:34   

Avo....
thank you for apologizing.  It seemed rather honest, but dont chase after Russel for attack Spetner.  Either Spetner was horribly negligent or intentionally malicious.  I would like to err on the side of caution, and assume he was just negligent, however, Spetner should still be chastised heavily.

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 24 2006,08:18)
Quote
I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses.  Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are?  What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did.
Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument.

You do realize that you never actually answered his question.
We all know that you think the ID crowd has done some actual scientific work....the problem is that you cannot give us examples.  I am entertaining the hope that you still know what the terms "objective" and "open-minded" mean.  A lot of great scientific revolutions have originally met with harsh criticism and doubt; but they all eventually produced so much evidence, and such strong evidence that the scientific community was forced to accept the new ideas.  They didnt rely on public opinion and social moods.

So...pony up and start LISTING  some hypotheses and the objective scientific tests of these hypotheses.

You already admit that random mutation and natural selection can be proven.  You just believe that they are being used too liberally to explain all of biological development.  Fair enough....but you had better provide something that is just as good at explaining the evidence and just as testable as our current theories.  Then IDers need to prove that it does an even better job of explaining the evidence.

So...what are the hypotheses?
how do we test them?
how do the hypotheses do a better job of explaining evidence than current theory?

I have heard several times that ID is about design detection and not a theory on biological diversity.  That sounds great.

So...in what other systems has ID been tested?
Can ID detect design in "known" tests?
If I was to present William Dembski with two 1,000,000,000 digit long binary numbers could he determine which one had randomly occured and which one had been "designed"?
How would he determine which one was designed?

I would ask Bill Dembski myself, but he has banned several people for asking that question.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,17:02   

Re "evidence points away from gradualism."

But "gradual" is relative. What's very gradual relative to recorded history can be very sudden relative to geologic eras.

Henry

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,08:36   

"evidence points away from gradualism"

He may just be mentioning the classic punctuated equilibrium stuff.  The fact that we dont see smooth and steady progression from one organism to another, but rather "steps" from each previous organism.  Im not really sure what he is talking about though because he has a tendency to "say something" and then not explain, provide examples, or give evidence for what he is talking about.

He kinda reminds me of a lot of bar arguments.  That guy your talking to read somewhere, something that is relevant to his argument.  He just cant remember what it was, where it was, or how exactly it helped his argument.  Normally, when you finally get around to figuring out what he is talking about....it is either nonsense, or it doesnt really have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

i.e. we wasted almost 2 days trying to figure out the whole Spetner/Dawkins debacle.

Quote
Well, essentially, you are saying that life could have evolved successfullyi n myriad ways. That may or may not be true. According to books like Nature's Destiny, that is not really true. Also, it is not simply a matter of finding a working combo. Life as it is, the cell, when we try to figure out how it could have occurred against the difficulties that it must have surmounted, is difficult to account for. Your argument is better if we speak of some specific protein with its hundreds of amino acids - there might be several other ways it could have been put together to solve its task.


First....how does "Nature's Destiny" know that life could not have evolved in a different way?  Have they tried?  All that they can say is that in all of our research we have never seen life evolve in a different way.

Second, all of these statistical analyses of life are incredibly dishonest.  Why do you believe that only "fringe" scientists do these sorts of calculations?  Honest mathematicians and scientists know that these calculations are bogus.  These statistics take way too many liberties with the numbers and make far too many assumptions.  It is interesting to see the numbers they come up with....but it is hardly scientific.

Issac Newton was a brilliant scientist.  He had a way of realizing the physical world that was simply brilliant.  He also researched ancient religious texts heavily and decided that Jesus was not divine, based on the accounts of several people.
Why am i mentioning this?
Issac Newton never claimed that he had scientifically proven the non-divinity of Jesus.  He may  have used the "scientific method", and he may have had a great deal of evidence.  He realized, however, that he was basing his decision largely off of unfounded assumptions.  Assumptions that could not be evaluated objectively.  Learn a lesson from Newton, and realize that Dembski and his crowd are frauds.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,22:28   

Avo. You noted we seemed paranoid of ID. Ask yourself why. Because ID is a fundamentalist Christion wedge to indoctrinate children. That's all it is, nothing more and nothing less. I used to be a fundie, and I know how these people (IDiots) think. I can smell it a mile away.

You appear to be a sincere person, and that's great. Remember, people can be very sincere, but sincerely wrong. At least it seems like you are willing to do your homework on the subject.

RM+NS might not be perfect, but it is the best we got by far. I don't know, but if I was a god, then creating a system like evolution would seem to me the most intelligent and exciting thing to do. ID people say God is still tinkering in evolution. Science says that is an assumption that is not backed by evidence. The God that still has to do fixes and tinkering cannot be almighty. It's like a vehicle that requires a lot of maintenance. But to make a vehicle that betters itself all the time, adapts to the environment, requires no maintenance, now THAT is what I call awesome. That's why people like Miller have no problem, being religious and knowing evolution to be true.

Bottom line, science is a method, not a search for the divine. You want to make it a search for the divine, but no matter how much you want it, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Imagine I am a computer programmer. I search for the divine or try to validate the divine in my daily work. But, I work for a financial company. How can my code (search for divine) benefit that company? I will get fired, for various reasons. Crappy code, too much code, slow code, useless code. See, my that mark that I must hit is not to search for the divine, but to write good financial systems. The mark that science aims for is not the divine or supernatural. Assumptions on supernatural would kill our search for knowledge of nature. Goddidit is lazy, an easy way out.

Now, what evidence/facts etc do you require to "believe" that Evolution is real and ID is just religious dogma in a clown suit?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,01:28   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 24 2006,14:18)
Quote
I see now. What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic. Nice double standard you've got going there.
If Dawkins made a separate case of his atheism and spoke openly of his worldview only to atheist club meetings, it would be the same as what Dembski does. Dembski sees the difference between what is a scientifically viable statement to make versus one that is his inner worldview. That he hopes they do indeed coincide is only rational. Dawkins makes no secret that his atheist worldview is part of his evolution outlook. I cannot be sure but I think he has made statements to the effect that if (his) evolution theory is truly understood, it leaves no room for God and I happen to agree.

And you have this thing bass ackwards. Dawkins says that evolution "allows" one to be an atheist. You can not make the same claim of ID. Now, which one is able to make a scientifically viable statement?

I still see this as a double standard. Dembski teaches that science and Christ are completely intertwined, inseparable. Yet, you take his word for it that he can separate the science and theology, even though his "science" is dependent on his theology. Dawkins' science is not dependent on theology, else Miller would not be able to say that he accepts evolution. What personal philosophy Dawkins exhibits does not change this fact.
Quote
The thing is, the antievolution arguments have not been discarded, and it doesn't matter how old they are. But if they put the Bible first, that's a problem.

So, you believe that there are good arguments that the Earth is only 6000-10000 yrs. old?
Quote
Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument.

First of all, please enlighten us as to which they are.

Second, you again have it backwards. I've been arguing that belief in ID obligates belief in god. The fact that I pointed to Ken Miller earlier as one who believes in god and also accepts evolution makes your statement ludicrous. YOU are the one who has continually said that Miller must be a confused IDer because he can't believe in god and accept evolution. YOU are the one who is pushing for god belief obligating belief in ID, not me.
Quote
Is the problem with our egos a result of animal nature? Probably. Not every one who doubts Darwinism thinks every life form was independently created. You know, there are certain body languages used by chimps that are used by humans, and the Catholic church comes to mind....

Nice story. Now, answer my question. You made the statement to the effect that people cling to evolution because their egos get in the way. Is it our egos that account for the genetic similarities we see between us and apes, or other mammals. In other words, it is not ego that caused these things to be fact. It is fact that we have significant genetic similarities to apes, other mammals, even further down the line. Ego has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and will you stop using the word "gradualism" without defining what you mean by it?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,03:36   

From recent postings at JAD's blog:

Quote

   JAD,

   Fair enough on the spiritual question. I used to spend time at a couple of philosophy forums, and I am used to taking people's metaphysical positions seriously.

   When you say you've rejected the fundamentalist position, I am not sure what you mean. Special creation? I ask this because as you have pointed out yourself, no one really has much of an idea about the 'how.'

   Yes, it may be true that I can't reason with the PT crowd. The whole thing is quite eerie really. Russell reads Darwin's Black Box and thinks, "you've got to be kidding." I read Miller's answer to the flagellum problem and think "you've got to be kidding." I read Berlinski's coup de grace on the fish eyes rebuttals and think "can I get a sperm sample from this man?" They read it and call it a "bumbling attempt."

   There's something fascinating going on.

   I guess I'll come see what ISCID is about.

   7:42 PM
avocationist said...

   Thanks for telling me about ISCID. I like it.

   I'm sorry for the stupid question, but can you explain why you say chromosomal rearrangemenats cause evolution but not allelic changes? Since chromosomes contain many genes, what do you really mean by rearranging them? Are you simply saying that wholesale chunks of changes would be coordinated together as opposed to little bits at a time?

   9:13 PM
JohnADavison said...

   avocationist

   We see only that portion of the genome that happens to be turned on at a given time. The chromosome is a "reaction system" not just a row of genes acting independently. When chromosomes are expermentally or naturally rearranged, certain genes are turned on, others silenced. I recommend you read Goldschmidt who was the first to reject the particulate gene as having any significance in evolution. Also there are definitely preferred regions in which chromosomes are likely to undergo rearrangements. I mentioned some of this in my PEH paper. That is a rapidly growimg literature and everything that is being revealed pleads against randomness and for predetermination.

   You just have to purge your mind of the mistaken notion that allelic genes ever had anything to do with evolution. They didn't and they don't. One can accumulate all the mutants in the world and the species remains discrete and identifiable.

   I have a Dachshund named Otto, named after Otto Schindewolf. He has short legs but a normal torso exactly as does a human achondroplastic dwarf and for the same reasons. The dwarf remains a human and Otto remains a dog. We are all very similar genetically. Our differences are largely due to which genes are turned on and which turned off. It is the structure of our chromosomes that determines these differences.

   There is no doubt in my mind that everything in the organic world resulted from predestined forces that unfolded from within over the millions of years when evolution was actively proceeding. Each step in that process was instantaneous, discrete and irreversible exactly as in the development of the individual. Evolution is no longer in progress and to assume that it is is without foundation.

   Gradualism, natural selection and allelic mutation, none of these ever had anything to do with creative evolution. They are all figments of an atheist inspired imagination. I have said all this many times and it falls on deaf ears, ears that Einstein recognized as deaf to the "music of the spheres."

   I am happy to see you are back. Now will you review some of my recent posts and consider transmitting them over to the Bunker? it seems Falan Ox has run out of gas after doing as I asked only once. I don't see how they can ban you for doing that and it means a great deal to me to be able to force those poor misguided brain-washed Phillistines into the realization that they have wasted their lives chasing a phantom. If I can goad them into a state of communication and recognition I can destroy them with their own words. Of that I am certain. The Darwimps continue to practice the same old technique they have employed from the beginning. They have no critics. They must not and accordingly do not. It is as simple as that.

   It is hard to believe isn't it?

   In the meantime:

   "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
   Albert Einstein

   "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source.... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
   ibid

   Thanks for posting.

   10:22 PM
JohnADavison said...

   avocationist

   You ask if I have rejected God. Absolutely not. I have assumed one or more Gods. Someone or something had to write the programs. Those are my Gods. I call that God in the singular the Big Front loader in the Sky (BFL) for short. What I have rejected and still do reject is the fundamentalist notion of a personal God just as Einstein and Grasse did. If such a God exists I regard it as a bonus and nothing more. I also feel that the notion of two Gods is well within the province of religious dogma. What is Lucifer but a fallen angel anyway? Aren't angels Gods of sorts?

   I regard Dichard Rawkins as an instrument of Satan and, like Satan, he has his legions of faithful followers too just as the Fundies have theirs. It is the eternal battle over how man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident or is he the product of a plan? I am convinced he was planned and the plan has been executed and finalized. There is no better proof of this than the silence with which my challenge has been met to name a single mammalian genus more recent than Homo and a member of that genus younger than ourselves.

   If I may wax mystical for a moment and please don't take me seriously maybe, and that is a big maybe, that is the true significance of the last words presumably spoken from the cross:

   "It is finished."

   I sure would like to think so. Wouldn't anyone?

   So on that inspiring note let's return to the hard-headed world of bench science where absolutely nothing is being revealed today to support the biggest joke in the history of science, Darwinian evolution, the evolution that never was.

   Incidentally, this one would be a natural for transmission to the Bunker don't you think? I sure would appreciate it.

   Thanks for posting.


I wonder if you guys aren't being a bit hard on Avocationist.
I seem to see a genuine desire for understanding, but maybe I'm just a sentimental old softie.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,12:54   

Hello again,

You know I worked a lot this weekend and it is hard to keep up. Puck, you ask if I could tell something is designed if I was unfamiliar with it. We are familiar with what sorts of things we design, so even when we dredge up some unexpected artifact from the sea, we realize an ancient civilizaiton was repsonsible. But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design.

The idea behind IC is that there is not a gradual pathway which can lead to it. The gradual pathway is what Darsinists have generally expected will lead to complex organs. The Nelson-Pilger (sp?) paper was about just that, a slow and gradual improvement of light sensitive tissue into an eye. The whole time, it was a seeing organ. But people have brought up the possibility of co-option, at least of some of the components of the flagellum, and Behe (I think I am right here) has accepted this as another explanation but he refutes it is also being extremely unlikely. I think perhaps I can find the relevant part of his book, or if it is not in the book perhaps it is in the Dembski paper. Also, there is a later Dembski paper called IC revisited.

I don't think anyone expects an actual pathway to be proved, but rather for one to be proposed that looks workable. I am not understanding why the existence of the Type 3 system makes the flagellum non-IC.

Russell,

You say we have observed random mutation and natural selection. What random mutations have we observed that were useful? How does a random mutation series turn itself into a well-coordinated redesign of a body plan? How do small mutations leading to better sight also manage to randomly mutate the needed nerve pathways and brain and skull reformations?

Natural selection isn't a positive but a negative. Nothing is selected, but some don't make the grade. Natural selection is another way of saying that only what works will work. We could no more live without natural selection than we could live without the pain response.

The problems with assuming micromutations lead to wholesale redesign into new species is that it is simply difficult to envision that level of coordination to a random process fraught with mostly failure. And I still find it odd that while as Mayr says, mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, life forms exert their utmost efforts to prevent exactly that. Evolution scientists have noted that the norm for a species is stasis.

Chris,

Did I miss an earlier post about co-option? I am interested in understanding how people think this works.

GCT,

Buying into the arguments for design does not mean one has an a priori assumption of God. Some people simply see a problem with the whole NDE ball of wax, or perhaps they just have too much personal incredulity, but the God part doesn't come first, and they may remain agnostic.

I never said science should search for God. I said that science should acknowledge that there is the possibility that God exists, and if so, it changes all equations.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,14:48   

Quote
Behe ... has accepted [co-option] as another explanation but he refutes it is also being extremely unlikely.
Saying, "I think it's extremely unlikely" does not amount to "refuting".
Quote
What random mutations have we observed that were useful?
I don't know about you, but I've observed many virus mutations that allow a virus to better cope with different hosts, different metabolic conditions, particular drugs, particular antibodies... happens all the time. If it didn't, drug resistance in HIV wouldn't be a problem.
Quote
How do small mutations leading to better sight also manage to randomly mutate the needed nerve pathways and brain and skull reformations?
Are you being quite serious here? Evolution is an iterative process. Mutations build on one another. If one mutation leads to better vision, that presumably is beneficial in and of itself. Subsequent mutations leading to more brain development capable of using the better vision then become favorable, etc. Also, did you know that skull formation is responsive to brain formation? There are in fact mutations that result in severely limited brain development (microcephaly). Guess what! In those cases, you don't develop a normal skull with a tiny brain rattling around in it; the skull forms during fetal development in response to the forming brain.
Quote
I am not understanding why the existence of the Type 3 system makes the flagellum non-IC.
It demonstrates the one system is almost certainly related to the other by the process of "co-option" that Behe has "refuted" by declaring it unlikely. (Personally, I don't have an opinion about which, if either, is more "primitive"; I suspect they both evolved from a still less complex system. But the point stands: an evolving system can have a series of selectable functions without the "final" function being selected from the very beginning.)

By the way: you forgot to point out where I called Spetner "malicious".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,16:17   

Re "But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design."

I'm not sure what a hallmark is, outside of greeting cards, but I think what people recognize (when they do) is signs of manufacturing - markings on the object of study, debris left from tool use, or shapes that we've come to expect to see in things we already know to have been manufactured by somebody.

Biological entities, on the other hand, are "manufactured" to start with by their ancestors, and later by their own cells.

Re "The whole time, it was a seeing organ."

Methinks that was exactly the point. A very limited seeing "organ" was incrementally improved.

Re "Natural selection is another way of saying that only what works will work."

I think that omits a critical aspect of the process - mutations increase the number of heritable varieties present in the species (producing new varieties that weren't there before), and occasionally some of those work better than others at producing offspring. (On a side note, I sometimes wonder if focusing the discussion on individual mutations doesn't somewhat miss the point.)

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,17:38   

I just spent way too much time seeking the spot where the word malicious was used.

JAD asks a couple of questions and I have seen him mention this elsewhere as well, and since he often asks to have his posts transmitted here, I'll throw it out because I wonder what sort of answer would be approptiate.

Quote
Kazmer

You don't have to convince me. I believe the whole business was planned from the very beginning or beginnings and that man is the terminal product of a planned and now terminally executed scenario. The best evidence for this resides in the silence with which my following challenge has been met, the several times I have presented it.

Name a single mammalian genus younger than the genus Homo and a single member of that genus more recent than ourselves.

A second challenge has also not been met.

Pick any two species, living or dead, and provide the proof that one is ancestral to the other.

We do not see "evolution in action" as the Darwinians continue blindly to maintain. We see only the immutable products of a long past evolution, just as Linnaeus and Cuvier both understood long before Darwin. That evolution had nothing to do with chance, nothing to do with allelic mutation, nothing to do with sexual reproduction and nothing to do with the environment generally. It unfolded from within those relatively few organisms which linked one step in the ascending scenario to the next. There is no evidence that such organisms are still extant.


By gradualism, I mean that many small steps slowly lead to diversification of species and creation of novel structures.

Quote
If I was to present William Dembski with two 1,000,000,000 digit long binary numbers could he determine which one had randomly occured and which one had been "designed"?
How would he determine which one was designed?


Well what do you mean by designed. If you simply made up a number and called it designed but it didn't do anything, then of course he couldn't. If your number, however, was a specific set of information that accomplished something complex, and if Dembski were able to discern the relation of the number to some sort of task or other form of meaningful information (there being the possibility that he could not decode it and therefore it would continue to appear random to him) then yes, he could.

The thrust of the Nature's Destiny book is to look at, for example, the table of elements, and consider what certain of them do, such as water or carbon, and see if any other candidates can fill the roles and they can't. We live in the best of all possible worlds.  :)

Oh, I'm previewing my post and I see you'll fry me for calling water an element. You get the idea.

Renier,

What sort of fundie were you, and how did you change? If you think those guys are fundies, then do you think there are Christians who are not fundie? 'Cause they don't seem fundie to me. Well, some of them are.

CGT,

Quote
And you have this thing bass ackwards.  Dawkins says that evolution "allows" one to be an atheist.  You can not make the same claim of ID.  Now, which one is able to make a scientifically viable statement?
If that were the only statement Dawkins made, you'd be right. I think he says more than that. There is nothing nonvalid about the statement that a system was most likely designed and not random.

You have a good point that it is hard to separate one's science from religious or worldview. But you think Dawkins science is unchanged by it whereas Dembski's is. I don't agree. What seems to be going on here is that there is a great acceptance within the evo community (and indeed far more than I had expected) of theistic or deistic beliefs, so long as they are kept within a certain perspective. What I am saying is that ultimately either Dawkins is right and there is nothing but self-organizing matter, or the deck was stacked. Because if there is a supreme being of any sort then this alters reality at its very outset. Renier and Miller prefer a remote God who is separate from a system that he set up. I would have no argument with that as a possibility except it doesn't appear to be quite true - I don't see the system as being capable of evolving life all by itself, and from a mystical standpoint, a personal and limited God who resides in some particular spot but not in other spots isn't philosophically valid. In other words, I am arguing that all the cosmos is of an underlying unity.

Quote
So, you believe that there are good arguments that the Earth is only 6000-10000 yrs. old?
What??? I have not looked into the age of earth arguments whatsoever and have no opinion. I am pretty sure that it isn't 10,ooo years old because the only persuasion which would think so is Biblical (dont know about koran, but I consider Islam a conflation of several local traditions extant at the time) and the possibility of the Bible being literally accurate is surely less than zero.

It seems to me you argued I believe in ID because I believe in God. I pointed out that people can believe in God and accept evolution. Therefore it is not so that I must be accepting ID due to my belief in God.

As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that.

Quote
You made the statement to the effect that people cling to evolution because their egos get in the way.  Is it our egos that account for the genetic similarities we see between us and apes, or other mammals.  In other words, it is not ego that caused these things to be fact.  It is fact that we have significant genetic similarities to apes, other mammals, even further down the line.  Ego has nothing to do with it.
I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,18:48   

Avo

You used a term that suddenly striked me as very, very, very odd.

You referred to the deck "being stacked".  Interesting.
I pose a question to you....
Could you tell the difference between a deck I had stacked and a random deck?

Since a deck of cards could randomly exist in any order at all, then there is no way to determine that the deck is "stacked".  It could have been shuffled properly, and still wound up in that order.  You might assume that I am cheating, because I got 4 Aces on the first draw....but you couldnt actually know that I was cheating.

This is basically the problem with ID(philosophy) and ID(science).  ID(philosophy) thinks that the deck is stacked; ID(science) claims to be able to prove that the deck is stacked.

Quote
Well what do you mean by designed. If you simply made up a number and called it designed but it didn't do anything, then of course he couldn't. If your number, however, was a specific set of information that accomplished something complex, and if Dembski were able to discern the relation of the number to some sort of task or other form of meaningful information (there being the possibility that he could not decode it and therefore it would continue to appear random to him) then yes, he could.


Hmmm, thats not what Dembski says, he simply says that if the pattern of numbers is complex enough, that it proves design.  I do not believe that Dembski has any new relationship with respect to biological organisms.  He simply calculated that their chance of existence was too rare to be random.

You might want to write to Dembski and get a better explanation of his math.  Your answer for detecting design seems very rational, however, it is not the one that Dembski used.

Quote
As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that.


The reason you think that Miller is a confused IDist is because you confuse ID(philosophy) with ID(science).  Miller actually believes in ID(philosophy).

You also seem to want us to either acknowledge God, or acknowledge that there might be a God.  The only help I can offer you in this particular regard is to read the works of  Siddhartha Gautama.  The nature of God is unimportant, so is the question of his existence.  It is an unanswerable question that you will waste your life exploring.  You should divert that energy towards making yourself a better person.

In other words....it doesnt matter....if we acknowledge God, or His possibility of existence.  It doesnt change anything.  Your right, if God exists, then all of science is probably wrong; but God seems to either allow things to continue to hold up to natural laws....or he doesnt exist.  Either way, natural laws seem to exist, and they seem to be observable....so lets stick with the natural laws and ignore God when dealing with natural laws.

Quote
I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it.


Oh my God......
That is wrong...so very wrong.
The similarities between humans and chimps is not exaggerated, nor is it based on the fact that we are all "made up of the same stuff".  I like your book analogy....but you completely misused it.  The similarities between chimps and humans are not bit by bit comparisons.  It consists of large chunks of identical code.  

Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?  You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?  
My God, are you telling me that Rottweilers and Pomeranians have more in common that Chimps and humans?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2006,22:05   

Careful, PuckSR, you are being watched!

Quote
What I find most amusing is that this guy PuckSR has actually claimed that humans amd chimps are more closely related than are Rottweilers and whatever the other dogs were, let's say Chihuahuas shall we. You tell this illiterate Darwimpian mystic that all dogs are wolves and are exactly the same species as proved by the fact that they all produce fertile hybrids with each other and with the wolf and the coyote too.

You may also tell him why they are all the same species. It is because their karyotypes are basically identical and all the differences that they exhibit are due to Mendelian alleles, none of which ever had anything to do with organic evolution. You see as long as chromosomes can pair properly at meiosis I they will separate to form balanced functional haploid gametes at the end of meiosis.


From JAD's own blog.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,01:38   

Well, dog races belong to the same species, and diverged from wolves only 12000 years ago IIRC, they can still interbreed. Human and chimp lineages diverged millions of years ago.

However, I don't understand JAD's comment:
Quote
You may also tell him why they are all the same species. It is because their karyotypes are basically identical and all the differences that they exhibit are due to Mendelian alleles, none of which ever had anything to do with organic evolution. You see as long as chromosomes can pair properly at meiosis I they will separate to form balanced functional haploid gametes at the end of meiosis.

Does he mean that dog races never evolve the phenotypic differences they show today?
And he is referring to a particular barrier in sexual reproduction: gametic compatibility. I think he overestimates the importance of meiosis in speciation. Sure, gametic incompatibility is a particular form of pre-zygotic isolation, but there are many forms of reproductive isolation, including pre-mating and post-zygotic barriers.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,01:54   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 27 2006,18:54)
You know I worked a lot this weekend and it is hard to keep up. Puck, you ask if I could tell something is designed if I was unfamiliar with it. We are familiar with what sorts of things we design, so even when we dredge up some unexpected artifact from the sea, we realize an ancient civilizaiton was repsonsible. But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design.

Aren't there places in the world where shorelines have been altered and "designed" in order to protect natural habitats as well as human habitats?  Do you think that you or Dembski could walk along those shorelines and tell us what parts were designed, or pick out the "hallmarks of design" in those shorelines?  Without using the map of course....
Quote
Buying into the arguments for design does not mean one has an a priori assumption of God. Some people simply see a problem with the whole NDE ball of wax, or perhaps they just have too much personal incredulity, but the God part doesn't come first, and they may remain agnostic.

Contrary to what you said, how could one accept design and not accept god?  If one believes in cosmological ID, then it is utterly impossible, because a natural entity would not have the ability to "fine-tune" physics.  Even in biological ID, it is all but impossible.  How did some natural thing (alien, time traveller, etc.) create the flagellum, or anything else without having god-like powers?  How does this happen without any of us noticing?
Quote
I never said science should search for God. I said that science should acknowledge that there is the possibility that God exists, and if so, it changes all equations.

God may exist.  Happy now?  Of course, let's say that we all acknowledge that god may exist.  Does this mean that objects no longer fall at 9.8m/s^2?

The fact is that equations are what they are.  We have no way of knowing whether god exists or not.  If god does exist, then why would our equations change?  That just doesn't make sense.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,02:33   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 27 2006,23:38)
We live in the best of all possible worlds. :)

No, we live in the world we live in. In order to know that we live in the best of all possible worlds, one has to know what all possible worlds there are and then have some quantitative measure of determining that this one is the best. I know you put a smiley after it, but it's a typical thought from the ID crowd.
Quote
If that were the only statement Dawkins made, you'd be right. I think he says more than that. There is nothing nonvalid about the statement that a system was most likely designed and not random.

There is nothing nonvalid about that statement, except that you can not produce any scientific evidence for it. I'm also curious to know what you think the definition of "random" is. If you think that "random" automatically means "no god" then you are wrong.
Quote
You have a good point that it is hard to separate one's science from religious or worldview. But you think Dawkins science is unchanged by it whereas Dembski's is. I don't agree. What seems to be going on here is that there is a great acceptance within the evo community (and indeed far more than I had expected) of theistic or deistic beliefs, so long as they are kept within a certain perspective. What I am saying is that ultimately either Dawkins is right and there is nothing but self-organizing matter, or the deck was stacked. Because if there is a supreme being of any sort then this alters reality at its very outset. Renier and Miller prefer a remote God who is separate from a system that he set up. I would have no argument with that as a possibility except it doesn't appear to be quite true - I don't see the system as being capable of evolving life all by itself, and from a mystical standpoint, a personal and limited God who resides in some particular spot but not in other spots isn't philosophically valid. In other words, I am arguing that all the cosmos is of an underlying unity.

Yes, the evo community is very accepting of theistic belief, provided that belief does not interfere with the science. The evo community is also very accepting of atheistic belief, provided that non-belief does not interfere with the science. The evo community and the broader scientific community accepts both Miller and Dawkins, because their philosophies do not matter when the science is involved. Dembski is NOT accepted. I'll let you figure out why.

If Dawkins is right or you are right, how will you figure that out with science? The rest of your paragraph is all about philosophy. You are trying to back up your "science" with philosophy. I think you can see the error of that.

Also, I'd really like to know how if we all came to some realization that god exists that reality would somehow be altered.
Quote
What??? I have not looked into the age of earth arguments whatsoever and have no opinion. I am pretty sure that it isn't 10,ooo years old because the only persuasion which would think so is Biblical (dont know about koran, but I consider Islam a conflation of several local traditions extant at the time) and the possibility of the Bible being literally accurate is surely less than zero.

Well, that is one of the arguments brought up by the Creationist crowd, and something the IDers have generally refused to take a stand on. I figured since you spoke about how the Creationist arguments haven't been defeated, that you actually knew what they were.
Quote
It seems to me you argued I believe in ID because I believe in God. I pointed out that people can believe in God and accept evolution. Therefore it is not so that I must be accepting ID due to my belief in God.

As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that.

Now, I might start to get a little offended. I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice.

It was YOU who said that evolution is atheistic. Now, you say that people can believe in god and accept evolution?

Also, you do believe in ID because you believe in god. Is it possible to believe in ID and be atheist? No, it isn't.

What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not. Do objects fall at different speeds depending on god belief? Are the similarities between chimps and humans at different percentages based on one's god belief? Does light travel at different speeds based on god belief?
Quote
I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it.

This has been addressed, so I won't belabor it.

I simply want to say 1) that once again you have maligned all evolutionary biologists as egotistical maniacs that can't see anything beyond their bloated heads, and 2) I am not upset that a masterpiece like Lolita shares the same alphabet that pedestrian works like Nancy Drew use, but I'm also not upset by the thought that we share a common ancestor with apes. But, your explanation seems to say that since we are all made up of "star stuff" that Sol is also one of our cousins.

I'm not sure what you mean by "We are the gods of this planet and it's time we start acting like it." What in the world does that have to do with science?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,02:33   

Quote
I just spent way too much time seeking the spot where the word malicious was used.
apparently in vain. Is that your version of an apology?
Quote
The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure,
and I'm sure that you are sure, and that your certainty is based on... nothing at all.
Quote
Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate.
Oh really? What would you estimate is the similarity between yourself and a human with Down syndrome?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,05:33   

Hmmm....apparently I pissed off JAD.

The point of mentioning dogs was not to say that humans and chimps are more closely related than different dog species.

The point, and I have made it several times, is that humans and chimps are remarkably similiar.  If I was going to choose two animals as examples of how evolution was impossible....chimp/human would be fairly far down the list.  Ignoring the genetic similarities.....they are physically very similiar.  They are also both highly intelligent. They are both social animals.  

I frequently hear IDists/Creationists admit that some diversification(microevolution) most likely occured.  Domestic dogs are a fine example of this.  I just cannot comprehend if they admit that a minimal amount of diversification occured...why they cannot admit that two animals that are obviously so similiar are related.

Quote
What I find most amusing is that this guy PuckSR has actually claimed that humans amd chimps are more closely related than are Rottweilers and whatever the other dogs were, let's say Chihuahuas shall we. You tell this illiterate Darwimpian mystic that all dogs are wolves and are exactly the same species as proved by the fact that they all produce fertile hybrids with each other and with the wolf and the coyote too.


All i said
Quote
Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?  You admit that a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian both evolved from the same original species.....despite drastic differences between the two, yet you cannot imagine that a human and a chimp are close relatives?  


I never said that chimp/humans are closer related than dogs
I never said that they could not copulate.
The entire purpose of that statement was as a thinking exercise.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,07:05   

Quote
Life forms are absolutely connected in some fundamental way, yet I am unconvinced as to how.


It's common descent...


Does anyone else remember the Citizen Kane skit from Kids in the Hall?

Quote
Dave: Oh, I saw a great movie last night. It was on the late show. It was-- um, uh, what was it called? It's a classic. It's uh . . . oh, I hate this. I hate it when this happens.

Kevin: Well, what was it about?

Dave: It's about this newspaper tycoon and he's dead, and everybody is telling stories about him, and--

Kevin: It's Citizen Kane.

Dave: Nnnno, that's not it. No, no - but something like that. It's uh . . .

Kevin: Okay, who was in it?

Dave: Orson Welles is in it. It's called . . .

Kevin: Then this is Citizen Kane. It's Citizen Kane.

Dave: Nnnno, that isn't it, but you're not far from it. It's uh . . .

Kevin: Well who else was in it?

Dave: Oh, um, I dunno.

Kevin: Was Joseph Cotten in it?

Dave: What else has he been in?

Kevin: The Third Man, The Magnificent Ambersons . . .

Dave: Oh, The Magnificent Ambersons. Yes, yes, yes, he was in it, yes. That's one of my favourite Orson Welles movies.

Kevin: Well this is definitely Citizen Kane then. You're talking about Citizen Kane.

Dave: Nnnno, no, no. But it's something like that. It's ci . . . ci, ci . . . Si. Si . . . sy . . .


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,10:08   

Quote
The point, and I have made it several times, is that humans and chimps are remarkably similiar
Seems clear enough to me. (Not sure how Davison managed to miss that, but, then, who cares?)

Anyway, I wonder: is there any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,10:14   

ummm....I dont even think that DaveScot could refute that the Martian taxonomy would consider humans/chimps in the same genus.

But.....to further your train of thought.....if our friendly martian was conducting field studies.....do you think his initial assumption would be that chimps/humans were able to cross-breed?

And when he discovered that this was not possible, he would consider this quirky, rather than seperate them further in his taxonomy?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2006,15:42   

Re "is there any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?"

I read someplace that an objective observer would have put chimp and human in the same genus to start with, but the decision was affected by politics (or do I mean ego?), or something to that effect.

Henry

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,05:32   

Quote
Chris,

Did I miss an earlier post about co-option? I am interested in understanding how people think this works.

I can't quite remember what I said in my post, it was an earlier one that seems to have gone. I think your question was based on a 'parts in a garage' analogy, which does not capture many important aspects of these systems. A good example of cooption is in the bacterium Sphingomonas chlorophenolica, which is able to digest PCP, which was first introduced into the environment 70 years ago. This process is performed by three enzymes, which were coopted from other metabolic processes by gene duplication. This can happen because although the enzymes are made up of hundreds of amino-acids, the majority of them form a globular structure that serves mainly to hold in place the few amino acids in the binding site of the enzyme that are involved in the chemical reaction. A mutation causing a change in one of these amino acids can have a large effect of the specificity of the enzyme, and of course because it is a duplicate this will have no affect on the fitness of the organism. At the moment the PCP degradation is a very inefficient process, but we would predict that eventually further mutations will increase the efficiency of the enzymes. This process works of course, because these proteins are in solution, and are free to interact at will. Obviously something like the flagellum is a lot more complicated, but this same process seems to have occurred with protein complexes, often due to the duplication of an entire complex.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,06:29   

Quote
(GCT: ) I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice.
You know, I honestly don't think Avo notices when she twists the arguments around. This is the fundamental (pun only partially intended) problem with creationist thinking: whatever question you ask, the answer has to conform to the overall precommitment to goddidit. That's also why I want her to track down where she thinks I called Spetner "malicious". I suspect most creationists (and I use the term broadly) are like Avo in this respect: not "malicious", but wishful thinkers whose ability to perceive reality is seriously affected by this fundamental precommitment, to the point where they manage to make such otherwise inexplicable errors as Spetner did in the case we discussed. Thinking that I called Spetner malicious is just another instance of this distorted perception of reality.

However, I do think that the Disco Inst crowd (Wells, Dembski, Luskin, Berlinski, et al.) goes beyond mere wishful-thinking driven inadvertance. It's my assessment that they've crossed the line into what can only be called dishonesty. I suspect that has something to do with the fact that for these guys, anti-evolution isn't just an idea or a cause, it's a career. Even with them, though, I doubt it's completely "malicious". Indeed (and you'll think I'm really naive here) I actually believe that erstwhile congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham was, at least in a sense, sincere when he assured the press that the facts would prove those corruption charges baseless - six months before tearfully pleading guilty. As I've often noted, I suspect the most successful used car salesman is the one who manages to convince himself that he is - in some sense - telling the truth.

Quote
What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not.
That, and the fact that she doesn't see that as post-modernism.

On co-option (or is the proper term co-optation? I'm not sure):
Quote
(Chris Hyland: ) A good example of cooption is in the bacterium Sphingomonas chlorophenolica, which is able to digest PCP, which was first introduced into the environment 70 years ago.
I think the nylonase story is another great example, if Avo is seriously interested. But I suspect she's not, so I'll hold off on going to the trouble of digging up the links.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,07:29   

Puck,

Quote
Since a deck of cards could randomly exist in any order at all, then there is no way to determine that the deck is "stacked".  It could have been shuffled properly, and still wound up in that order.  You might assume that I am cheating, because I got 4 Aces on the first draw....but you couldnt actually know that I was cheating.
Sure, with four aces you couldn't tell. But with sufficent levels of unlikelihood, one comes to the conclusion a thing was not random. And the ID proponents, in their arguments, always acknowledge that you cannot prove in any absolute sense that something or other could never have occurred. But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation, it does raise the incredulity quotient.

Quote

Hmmm, thats not what Dembski says, he simply says that if the pattern of numbers is complex enough, that it proves design.  I do not believe that Dembski has any new relationship with respect to biological organisms.  He simply calculated that their chance of existence was too rare to be random.
You answer indicates there is some history to this question that I am unaware of. I simply answered as best I could within CSI framework. I do not know what Dembski means by a pattern being complex enough, but his thing is complex and specified information; therefore the information must be tied to some kind of meaning such as DNA code.

I will not be writing Dembski for math explanations! Algebra is all I have gotten to. And don't be supposing I remember it.

Quote

The reason you think that Miller is a confused IDist is because you confuse ID(philosophy) with ID(science).  Miller actually believes in ID(philosophy).
Supposing one day we have a real theory of everything. Now, if it is just a physics theory, and it might be, perhaps it won't really explain what underlies this universe we find ourselves in. But a true theory of everything should include any fundamental knowledge such as the cause of nature. So if that fine day comes, we will not have philosophy and science in separate realms. It is only our ignorance that causes them to appear separate.

Dawkins believes there is only matter and it organized itself into this universe and these life forms without any outside agency or cause. Miller believes in a transcendent God of great intelligence who is the cause of nature and who intervenes on the quantum level, and even appoints a vicar to oversee his salvation project. The only argument between Miller and Behe is the amount or placement of interference. Behe does not see how the forces of chemical reactions can account for certain complex systems, and Miller does. Behe does not believe that every roll of the dice is predetermined. He believes in a certain amount of chance, even in evolution. So Behe and Miller draw the line in a different place. It is an important argument, but not a fundamental one.

I guess I am not a Buddhist. I find much in buddhist literature extremely useful, but ultimately enigmatic and vague. Perhaps that is good in a way, from a spiritual point of view, since a great impediment to knowing God would be the false notions that people carry. Buddhism is a great cleansing approach.

There is no reason to suppose that God goes against the laws of nature at any time. Unless by going against them, one simply means that God might act in the same way that we act - to bring about a result that would not occur if he had not acted. Cars do not construct themselves, houses do not build themselves but neither does it go against the laws of nature when we do build them.

Quote

Why do you people think that it is so obscene that chimps and humans are related?
What people!?
You have completely misread what I said. I clearly stated that the whole chimp problem hardly interests me. When did I say it was obscene? Yes, I think that for argument purposes, the similarities are exaggerated, and when the fray settles, I don't believe the similarity will be 99%. It think the truth is closer to 95%. I am going to say more about this when I get the chance to answer Russell, perhaps tomorrow.
I can't speak of a rottweiler and pomeranian evolving because they didn't. They are a domesticated species and we have exploited that to the max. This is a good illustration of the variety that some species are capable of without even beginning to violate the species barrier. Some genomes are apparently more capable of variety than others. Yes, of course those two dogs are far more similar than we are to chimps! Their general dogginess is not in dispute. Of course we are close to chimps - but nonetheless we are very, very different. It doesn't matter if it was ten genes that made the difference - the difference is both profound on the one hand, and less than for all other species on the other.  I believe I recently read it is estimated to be 35 million base pairs. whatever percent that comes to, so be it.

Zheano (Jeannot) I think your post you should take to Davison's blog because while he made some insult according to his custom, he should actually answer it.

GCT,
Quote
Aren't there places in the world where shorelines have been altered and "designed" in order to protect natural habitats as well as human habitats?  Do you think that you or Dembski could walk along those shorelines and tell us what parts were designed, or pick out the "hallmarks of design" in those shorelines?
No one is arguing that such subtle forms of design are detectable. ID focuses on very complex systems, nothing like shorelines.

Quote

Contrary to what you said, how could one accept design and not accept god?
I agree but my argument was that belief in god does not automatically mean one accepts ID. But belief in ID is difficult to reconcile with no God, you are right about that.

Quote

The fact is that equations are what they are.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that in a mathematical sense. I simply meant that a universe with God is a very different one than without.

Quote
In order to know that we live in the best of all possible worlds, one has to know what all possible worlds there are and then have some quantitative measure of determining that this one is the best.
Yes, but the arguments of a book like Nature's Destiny is that there is not another possible world, not one that can work anything like as well as this one.  
Quote
If you think that "random" automatically means "no god" then you are wrong.
Well, that is pretty much the way I take it. Now, if you take it that there was an initial setup so that the laws of nature would tend to lead to life, but that the process was random like a roll of the dice or perhaps like our weather, then I would not really consider that random. And even if a lot was left to chance, it is hard to imagine a highly intelligent God who can have made such a setup and yet not had a pretty good idea of what sort of life forms, and ultimately human-like intelligence would result. Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!

Quote

If Dawkins is right or you are right, how will you figure that out with science?
It seems Alan Fox on another thread said that there is no developmental plan. I may have misunderstood him. He was saying that DNA codes for protein and that is all it does. Now, this was one of the main points in the infamous Meyer paper. We don't know a lot about how the body plans get realized in embryonic devlopment. He calls them epigenetic factors. I find it odd to simply state that there is no plan. I do think that science will ultimately prove whether species are capable of mutating into new species, and whether they are capable of generating new body plans in the ways described by Darwinian evolution.
Quote
Also, I'd really like to know how if we all came to some realization that god exists that reality would somehow be altered.
It would mean everything and nothing at all.

Quote
Now, I might start to get a little offended.  I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice.
It was YOU who said that evolution is atheistic.  Now, you say that people can believe in god and accept evolution?
Of course they can. We have Puck, we have Miller, and a couple of others here who confessed to belief in God. But ultimately, it can never, really, really be the same evolution that Dawkins thinks of.

Quote

What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not.  Do objects fall at different speeds depending on god belief?  Are the similarities between chimps and humans at different percentages based on one's god belief?  Does light travel at different speeds based on god belief?
Well, belief doesn't change reality. But reality itself is different if there is a God. The only difference belief in God would make to one's reality is that perception would be somewhat deepened, depending upon how much intent you focus upon it.

I have not maligned evolutionary biologists as hopeless egomaniacs simply because I have pointed out that ego is an impediment to objective argument and slows down the progress of truth. I am not picking on any particular persuasion of humanity.

Quote
but I'm also not upset by the thought that we share a common ancestor with apes.  But, your explanation seems to say that since we are all made up of "star stuff" that Sol is also one of our cousins.
I couldn't possibly care less that we/if we have a common ancestor with apes. I think all life is one life, and all beings have consciousness. Their bodies do not disgust me, nor even their lack of human intelligence, although I do not want to trade mine in. I admire animal intelligence.

The inanimate realm provides the substructure upon which the animate realm depends, and everything, animate and inanimate, is built up of the same elements, and the elements are of the same particles - the bible says we are made of dust and somehow that is better than being made of chimp? As I said to Artist in Training, we are all made of light, this whole cosmos, so who cares about chimps?

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by "We are the gods of this planet and it's time we start acting like it."  What in the world does that have to do with science?
No matter how you want to interpret it, we are in charge here and we are head and shoulders above the other life forms, because of our intelligence. It is a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative difference.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,08:00   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 01 2006,13:29)
No one is arguing that such subtle forms of design are detectable. ID focuses on very complex systems, nothing like shorelines.

Do you honestly think that designing a shoreline is subtle and non-complex? And, why can't the IDers detect the design of that? If they can't detect that, then why do they think they can detect design in something that already has been explained by evolution?
Quote
I agree but my argument was that belief in god does not automatically mean one accepts ID. But belief in ID is difficult to reconcile with no God, you are right about that.

I'm glad you are finally admitting that evolution is NOT atheistic. We can at least get that out of the way. So, since it isn't atheistic, why can't you accept evolution and still believe in your god?

Also, if one must believe in god in order to hold a belief in ID, how exactly is that scientific?
Quote
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that in a mathematical sense. I simply meant that a universe with God is a very different one than without.

How?
Quote
Yes, but the arguments of a book like Nature's Destiny is that there is not another possible world, not one that can work anything like as well as this one.

And that is a specious argument for a couple reasons. One, it's entirely possible that there are other worlds, or other universes that could create worlds with life. Two, their definition of the best world is based on an Earth bias. Three, (and this is a religious objection) why couldn't your god create a more perfect world?
Quote
Well, that is pretty much the way I take it. Now, if you take it that there was an initial setup so that the laws of nature would tend to lead to life, but that the process was random like a roll of the dice or perhaps like our weather, then I would not really consider that random. And even if a lot was left to chance, it is hard to imagine a highly intelligent God who can have made such a setup and yet not had a pretty good idea of what sort of life forms, and ultimately human-like intelligence would result. Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!

And, like I warned you ahead of time, you are wrong. Random from the scientific sense means that we can't determine or predict the exact time, location, etc. of the mutations that will occur. We can also discern no plan. It's non-causal. That doesn't have any implications when it comes to god belief. One is free to hold a non-belief in god and decide that it all happened naturally. One could believe that god set up the initial conditions and let everything run on its own. One could believe that god makes all the mutations happen and has a specific plan for letting things play out a specific way. We just can't determine which, if any, of those is correct through scientific means. So, we call it random.
Quote
It seems Alan Fox on another thread said that there is no developmental plan. I may have misunderstood him. He was saying that DNA codes for protein and that is all it does. Now, this was one of the main points in the infamous Meyer paper. We don't know a lot about how the body plans get realized in embryonic devlopment. He calls them epigenetic factors. I find it odd to simply state that there is no plan. I do think that science will ultimately prove whether species are capable of mutating into new species, and whether they are capable of generating new body plans in the ways described by Darwinian evolution.

This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through science? Please. Either way, science can not determine if humans are here by some plan, as I explained above.
Quote
It would mean everything and nothing at all.

This answer meant nothing at all.
Quote
Of course they can. We have Puck, we have Miller, and a couple of others here who confessed to belief in God. But ultimately, it can never, really, really be the same evolution that Dawkins thinks of.

So, you reject the notion that Miller is a confused IDist? Good. We've made some progress.

As for versions of evolution, as far as the science goes, it IS the same for Dawkins as it is for Miller and Puck. Their philosophies differ, but the science does not.
Quote
Well, belief doesn't change reality. But reality itself is different if there is a God. The only difference belief in God would make to one's reality is that perception would be somewhat deepened, depending upon how much intent you focus upon it.

How is reality different if god exists? God exists or doesn't, correct? If we learn that god doesn't exist, does that change the reality of the world we were living in that didn't have a god? If we learn that god does exist, does that change the reality of the world we were living in that did have a god?
Quote
I have not maligned evolutionary biologists as hopeless egomaniacs simply because I have pointed out that ego is an impediment to objective argument and slows down the progress of truth. I am not picking on any particular persuasion of humanity.

But, in reality you have. You have basically said that biologists who have devoted their lives to studying evolution are a bunch of morons who let their egos get in the way, because they can't see what you find so obvious, which is the "fact" that evolution doesn't cut it, but some nebulous concept that can't be tested or even come up with a hypothesis is superior, somehow.
Quote
No matter how you want to interpret it, we are in charge here and we are head and shoulders above the other life forms, because of our intelligence. It is a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative difference.

That certainly depends on a lot of factors. Certainly we are superior to all other animals in figuring out ways of killing each other. But, I ask again, what in the world does this have to do with science?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,09:07   

Re "But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation,"

Fortuitious for the survivors. Not so much for the much larger number of species that have gone extinct.

Re "the bible says we are made of dust and somehow that is better than being made of chimp?"

Good point.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,09:11   

Quote
But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation, it does raise the incredulity quotient.

And which fortuitous events would those be?  If you think that humans were somehow destined, then you could perhaps say that everything that happened had to happen just as it did, else humans would probably not be here, so it must have been fortuitous, and the sheer probably of that is so astronomical that one would doubt how it could have happened.

Too bad that's not a good argument.  Scientifically, there's no reason to assume that humans were destined.  If one wants to take that philosophical leap, then one may invoke their god to explain how it happened.  Either way, it's not a good argument against evolution.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2006,09:29   

Quote
Sure, with four aces you couldn't tell. But with sufficent levels of unlikelihood, one comes to the conclusion a thing was not random. And the ID proponents, in their arguments, always acknowledge that you cannot prove in any absolute sense that something or other could never have occurred. But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation, it does raise the incredulity quotient.


Exactly....and I would most certainly agree with you that if all the cards came in a specific order....that i probably stacked the deck.  The problem is....those would both be assumptions.  Pay attention...Im going to keep bringing this up.  We would assume, and probably correctly, that if the cards kept coming up in a specifically good order...that the deck was stacked.  This is why you believe in ID, this is why I believe in God.

The problem is that you couldnt prove that I stacked the deck.  To prove that I stacked the deck, you would have to see me stacking the deck, or explain how I was cheating.

Quote
The only argument between Miller and Behe is the amount or placement of interference.


Totally wrong.  Miller might actually believe that God takes a stronger hand and more direct hand in his involvement.  That is not the difference, and this is the source of a great deal of your confusion.

Behe thinks that he can prove that God interferes.  Miller doesnt know if you can prove God or not, but he does know that Behe's proof isnt any good.

Let me see if i can explain how Behe and Dembski are trying to prove God:
Assumptions are important to science....in science several things have to be assumed.  Normally theories based on observations can be considered assumed.  They are based on a lot of observations....not just 5-10, but normally thousands before they are even considered theories.

Behe and Dembski are abusing the typical assumptions of science.  They are providing an assumption...then providing 2-3 cases of that assumption possibly being correct.  The 2-3 cases that they provide;flagellum, eye, etc. are all heavily contested.

Going back to my playing card analogy Avo.  You even agreed that if I got 4 aces right off the draw, while it might be a bit curious, you probably wouldnt even feel comfortable accusing me of cheating.  Behe got 3 aces, and then claimed that he had proven that the deck was stacked.

Dembski was even worse, he realized that 3 aces dont provide very high odds against.  He also knew that IDist wouldnt be able to find thousands of examples of ID.  He therefore provided incredibly high odds for a single case.  He showed that the odd of life evolving in the way that it has is very rare.  The problem with Dembski's approach is a little bit harder to grasp.
You know that the odds of all of the cards in a deck being in  a perfect order(like when they come out of a box) are very rare.  What you probably dont realize, is that if you go get a shuffled deck of cards, and deal them all out, the odds of them being in that order is just as rare....
Doesnt make sense?  Well, odds dont deal with the desirability of the results.  Sure, to us, the odds of a perfectly arranged deck are much higher than a random deck.  The problem is that statistics says that the odds are the same.
Dembski abuses this little trick.  He shows that the odds of life evolving are very, very slim.  He ignores the fact that it doesnt make the evolution of life extraordinary.  You dont consider most decks of cards "extraordinary" despite the fact that it is incredibly rare that they will be in that order!

Quote
Yes, I think that for argument purposes, the similarities are exaggerated, and when the fray settles, I don't believe the similarity will be 99%. It think the truth is closer to 95%.


No, you completely missed the point.  The original research placed the similarities at around 95%.  Better analysis, and a better understanding of certain genes moved the percentage up 99.4%

Why did it move up?  It wasnt because they fudged the numbers, it was because they better understood what genes to compare.  Better analysis does not mean that they changed the numbers to advance an argument.  You really seem to attach a lot of paranoia to the scientific community.

Quote
the difference is both profound on the one hand, and less than for all other species on the other.


Why is the difference profound?
Your just a hairless walking talking ape.
It should be kinda obvious, we have constantly found apes that are showing more and more hairless. with a more bipedal stance, and even eventually talking apes.
So your an ape, there isnt anything profound about it.  
My dog comparison, which everyone seems to miss, is that domestic dogs are physically very different.  We do not see anything profound in the fact that a rottweiler and a pomeranian are strongly related, but start telling a human he is related to a chimp....and suddenly you have a profound relationship?

Quote
So if that fine day comes, we will not have philosophy and science in separate realms. It is only our ignorance that causes them to appear separate.


What?
Science and philosophy are not seperate realms because of topic, they are seperate realms because of procedure.

Lets go back to the beginning, and bring this all full circle.
A philosopher would say that if you got 4 aces right off the bat on a deal, that you were probably cheating
A scientist would say that if you got 4 aces right off the bat on a deal, that you got 4 aces right off the bat

Philosophers are free to assume away, as long as the assumption pertains slightly to logic.
A Scientist must either prove, or display to a great degree that he is correct, and is not nearly as free to make claims.

This is why ID belongs strongly in philosophy.  I can look at this wonderful world, with all of its beauty, and say that God must have designed it.  This is a perfectly valid philosophical statment.

A scientist cannot say the same thing...he cannot even say anything close.  He deals in emperical evidence and absolutes.

Science, Philosophy, and Religion will never merge, because they actually approach the question from different perspectives.  The simple fact that you think they will is highly dubious.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,05:13   

Quote
We don't know a lot about how the body plans get realized in embryonic devlopment.
No, but we do have some idea and are learning more all the time.

Quote
I do think that science will ultimately prove whether species are capable of mutating into new species, and whether they are capable of generating new body plans in the ways described by Darwinian evolution.
I agree, but I am curious what kind of proof you would require.

It seems your argument is that a universe with a god would be very different than one with out a god. I am perfectly happy to accept that this is true, in fact so does Richard Dawkins. The problem is that the supporters of ID claim to have evidence of the former. I am open to the possibility that evidence will be found, but to say that it what is currently presented is evidence to even the most basic scientific standards is simply dishonest. I have read dozens of papers by biologists, chemists, engineers and mathematicians which all argue that biological systems exhibit the characteristics we would expect if they had arisen by evolutionary processes, so ID has a long way to catch up.

Quote
Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!
This is a good question, and I have never heard a religious person answer it. Presumably an omnipotent god would know this would be the result even if he didn't specifically plan it, but I don't know.

Quote
Sure, with four aces you couldn't tell. But with sufficent levels of unlikelihood, one comes to the conclusion a thing was not random.
The point is that to calculate the level of unlikelyhood for something such as the flagellum to any degree of accuracy is pretty much impossible at the moment. I wish it wasn't it would make my job a lot easier.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,10:40   

Quote
Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!


I have noticed for a long time that proponents of ID seem to fall in a very particular theological circle.  They cannot understand religious beliefs outside of their own, nor can they attempt to understand the rational behind such a belief.

Miller's God and Avo's God are basically the same.
Avo, you believe that your God created you.
Miller believes that his God created him too.

The difference is that Miller's God created him in a somewhat indirect fashion.  Do not misunderstand the usage of the word "indirect" here.  Miller believes that his God used a tool to create him, while Avo believes that God acted directly.

Miller believes that his God is omnipotent(all powerful) and omniscient(all knowing).  One major advantage of being omnipotent and omniscent is that you can make incredible shots in pool.  Miller's God didnt have to go pick up the 9 ball and drop it in the corner pocket.....Miller's God made an incredibly complex shot that seemed almost impossible.

They are both the same God, Miller just recognizes that with His omnipotence and omniscience...God could have been far more elaborate with his creation.

If you think that it is silly to believe that God would go to all of this trouble....then why did he create all of the stars?
We know that life does not exist around most stars, and that from our perspective they are just points of light.  God didnt just create points of light....he created a massive, complex, and grandiose Universe.  If you ask me....He likes to show off....

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,11:32   

Quote
They [Miller's and Avo's] are both the same God, Miller just recognizes that with His omnipotence and omniscience...God could have been far more elaborate with his creation.
I've never quite bought this "we all worship the same God" thing. The deity worshipped by Christian fundamentalists has one set of properties (consigns gay people to he11, had a human son, spoke to Amos, Jeremiah, Pat Robertson, doesn't have much of a sense of humor...). The deity recognized by, say, Reform Jews has very different properties. Miller refers to his God as He, Avo refers to hers as She...

I guess the difference in perspective is the difference between a theist (say, PuckSR) and a nontheist (say, me; I'm not postulating any difference, by the way, between "nontheist" and "atheist" - it's just that the former seems neutral and descriptive, while the latter seems to connote in-your-face aggressiveness). The theist, and I guess I really mean monotheist, takes it as given that God exists, and that the faithful of various persuasions are mistaken about Its properties, while the nontheist thinks that, since these deities exist only in believers' minds, to postulate entities with different properties is to postulate different entities.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,15:46   

Chris, going back over some posts I found your co-option one, and I just want to say that I have reread it and take note.

Russell,

Quote
Surely, when you say such and such model has been "largely abandoned" - you can cite at least one review of the relevant literature by a relevant scholar of the field to substantiate that claim.


I really can't evaluate a paper of the length that you have given. If you could summarize it, or bring out its main points...
Why dismiss Mike Gene so easily? His 5-part essay on the flagellum is pretty readable and has references at the bottom of each section. I didn't see a date. I wanted to see if it was later than the paper you cited.
    ++++++++

2. Is there any reason to think the type III export system, complete with the ancestors of flhA, flhB, fliR, fliQ, fliP, fliI and others, existed as a "cooptable part." Thus far, the answer is no, as there are good reasons to think the type III system evolved from pre-existing flagella.

a. The bacterial flagellum is found in both mesophilic and thermophilic bacteria, gram-positive and gram-negative, high GC and low GC content bacteria, and spirochetes. Type III systems seem to be restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. That is, if we look at the sequenced genomes from the various groups cited above, we can find the genes for the bacterial flagellum but not the type III system genes.

b. Independent evidence suggests the type III system is recent. It is not only restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but to animal and plant pathogens. In fact, the function of the system depends on intimate contact with these multicellular organisms. This all indicates this system arose after plants and animals appeared. In fact, the type III genes of plant pathogens are more similar to their own flagellar genes than the type III genes of animal pathogens. This has led some to propose that the type III system arose in plant pathogens and then spread to animal pathogens by horizontal transfer.

c. When we look at the type III system its genes are commonly clustered and found on large virulence plasmids. When they are in the chromosome, their GC content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. In other words, there is good reason to invoke horizontal transfer to explain type III distribution. In contrast, flagellar genes are usually split into three or more operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome. There is no evidence that the flagellum has been spread about by horizontal transfer.

d. It's much easier to envision the evolution of the type III system from flagella than vice versa. For starters, evidence has surfaced that the basal body of the flagellum already works to secrete proteins other than the flagellar proteins, including virulence factors. Thus, the basal body is already poised to evolve into a type III system from the start. Evolution apparently would only have to duplicate and tweak the type III virulence protein secretion activity already existing in flagella. . In my opinion, this view is far more parsimonious than to propose that something like the type III system evolved long ago, was lost by all bacteria but gram-negative animal/plant pathogens and then was used to evolve the flagellum so that horizontal transfer could spread flagella far and wide (despite the lack of evidence for such transfer).

Thus, it should not be surprising that the scientific opinion has been converging on the notion that the export machinery evolved from the flagellar machinery [5-7].

There is yet another interesting aspect to all this. Since evolving from some flagellum, the type III transport system appears to have lost its ability to engage in rotary transport. The flagellar motor is composed of five proteins: MotA, MotB, FliG, FliN, and FliM. We'll discuss this more below, but right now it is worth pointing out that the type III systems have no homologs for MotA, MotB, or FliM. The Mot proteins are essential components of the motor, as they are membrane proteins that fulfill two functions: they transport ions to provide the energy for rotation and serve as the stator against which the rotor (FliG, FliN, FliM) moves. What's more, the type III rotor components have significantly changed. The type III homolog of FliN shares sequence similarity only with in its C-terminal 80 amino acids. And the sequence similarity between the FliG homologs are almost non-existent. Furthermore, there have been significant changes in FliF. FliF forms the MS ring (the "mounting plate"), which is associated with and above the C-ring composed of FliG, M, and N. FliF in flagella is composed of 500+ amino acids, but in the type III homolog, both the C- and N-terminal domains thought to be involved in forming the MS ring are missing. All that is left in common between them is a central region of about 90 amino acids.

Here we find another reason to recognize the significance of the flagellum-to-type III system evolution. Type III systems have apparently lost their ability to rotate. Thus, we can't think of type III systems as something pre-adapted to rotate, as all the rotary information has been lost. To argue that the type III system could reacquire the ability to rotate, as the flagellum does, is to essentially violate Dollo's Law, which states: "evolutionary change manifested at any level higher than the genetic is irreversible, and that anatomical structures or functions once lost cannot be regained." [8] Yet by proposing that the flagellum once existed as a type III system and later acquired the ability to rotate is not hardly any different that proposing type III systems could reacquire the ability to rotate and violate Dollo's Law.
     ++++++++++++++
Quote
Saying, "I think it's extremely unlikely" does not amount to "refuting".
OK, maybe refuting isn't the word, but Behe has made good arguments to show that the compiling of the flagellum from disparate parts is not likely. I spent a bit of time and didn't find them. We are not talking about absolute proof, but rather establishing that intelligent design is a reasonable supposition.

Quote
Are you being quite serious here? Evolution is an iterative process. Mutations build on one another. If one mutation leads to better vision, that presumably is beneficial in and of itself. Subsequent mutations leading to more brain development capable of using the better vision then become favorable, etc. Also, did you know that skull formation is responsive to brain formation?
OK, there may be some systems in which this can work to a degree, but I think that my objection still stands. There is an awful lot of very exacting interface and construction in the different systems. Are we just assuming they can cobble themselves together? We not only get a fortuitous mutation, but it includes the construction kit also?

Quote
It demonstrates the one system is almost certainly related to the other by the process of "co-option" that Behe has "refuted" by declaring it unlikely.
Well, unfortunately, we really don't know that, and it is hardly certain when there is good reason to think the type 3 was not a precursor. I'm not sure Behe is against all co-option, just doesn't think it can work to put together an IC system.

Quote
But the point stands: an evolving system can have a series of  selectable functions without the "final" function being selected from the very beginning.

So it could get a couple of proteins to do something, and then get a few more, cobbled together which will now do something entirely different, and somehow the genome has decided to code for putting them together, and then along comes another protein or set of proteins, which do yet something else again, and this is now added to the first two, which now has a completely new function, and all the old functions for these three systems are still also being covered (presumably they are still needed) while each time this two and now three and now four and now five-part set assumes a completely new role, while somehow not abandoning the old role, and all fitting together perfectly. Not only each new added part but also each set of two-parts, and three-parts, and four-parts - presumably all things the cell still needs?

Quote
apparently in vain. Is that your version of an apology?
No my dear, when I feel the need to apologize it will be much sweeter. If you didn't say it, I won't insist. I am pretty sure I saw it. Maybe it was someone else. As for Spetner, I got an answer from him, but it appears he still didn't understand what he did. He corrected me to say that yes, Dawkins did the calculation, but did not calculate the likelihood of the event happening in the lifetime of the alien. However, I sent him another letter pointing out that where Dawkins said that he also used a different phrase, i.e., perfect hand, not perfect deal.  

Quote
Oh really? What would you estimate is the similarity between yourself and a human with Down syndrome?
Gosh, I don't begin to know how to answer this. there are a lot of genes on a chromosome, and I don't really know what happens or why when you have that extra chromosome, but I don't think the situation is comparable.

Quote

The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure,

Quote
and I'm sure that you are sure, and that your certainty is based on... nothing at all.


How can we be 99.4 the same as a species with 1/3 our brain size? a species with a different form of locomotion? a species which cannot speak?

Here's what a guy who calls himself an 'interventionist' (humans and domesticated plants and animals were deliberately genetically altered by human-like aliens) has to say:

We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.

Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every prehuman ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.

Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting better made us much, much weaker.

Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.

Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wounds edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called contracture. In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.

Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid tools.

Fingernails & Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone tools were not for butchering animals.

Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.

Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say improved or superior is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)

Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.

Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better?

Quote
Anyway, I wonder: is there any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?
So maybe the above is an answer.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,16:35   

Most of those items are changes in proportion of something that's present in both species, or a slight change in position of something. I wouldn't either of those to necessarily require much genetic change.

Re "Primates have 48 chromosomes. [...] yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes!"

That's been mentioned around here someplace quite recently, I think. Somewhere along the way two chromosomes fused, and the remnants of the fused ends can be seen in the middle of the resulting chromosome in humans.

Re "any reason why a Martian Linnaeus, say, would assign us to two different genera?"

I gather the answer is no. From what I understand, the amount of difference between human and chimp is typical of pairs of species that are placed in the same genus (i.e., less than the amount of difference generally expected of two genera in the same family).

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,17:01   

Re "increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved."

My understanding was that they came first (humans started in Africa, after all), and the loss of coloration was an adaptation to colder climates.

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,18:00   

I'm completely lost now and don't know where I've left off.

Puck, I don't think anyone expects an exact pathway, but the proposals so far are just too vague. You said the type 3 system is proof the flagellum can operate without all its parts. It is no such thing! Regardless of how it got together or which of its parts may have once had a different function, the flagellum as it now is cannot have any parts removed. the type 3 system is not a simpler flagellum, it is a transmembrane injection device.

Quote
I read someplace that an objective observer would have put chimp and human in the same genus to start with,
What does it take to get into a genus? What's the difference between a family and a genus?

Quote

(GCT: ) I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice.
You know, I honestly don't think Avo notices when she twists the arguments around. This is the fundamental (pun only partially intended) problem with creationist thinking: whatever question you ask, the answer has to conform to the overall precommitment to goddidit.


This is very shi##y of you Russell. Let GCT go back and show where I twisted his arguments. I already spend enough time keeping each one straight as I can. My words are very frequently misunderstood and I patiently explain.

Again, this is the 4th time that I find you on your theme of being very suspicous of the motives and honesty of those who disagree with your views.

Quote
That, and the fact that she doesn't see that as post-modernism.
Why don't you define postmodernism then, because I gave my definition and it had nothing to do with our conversation.

Quote
I think the nylonase story is another great example, if Avo is seriously interested.
I've read about that, no doubt from an ID standpoint.

GCT,

Quote
What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not.

I think I already addressed this. comments like this make me think I am speaking with simpletons. Am I speaking with simpletons?
Quote
Do you honestly think that designing a shoreline is subtle and non-complex?
Why yes, I do. What did you have in mind? It sounded like a big landscaping project.

Quote
So, since it isn't atheistic, why can't you accept evolution and still believe in your god?
Because I have read books which have convinced me it ISN'T TRUE. It isn't because of my belief in God. The only thing about my belief in god is that I could never suppose that existence itself was anything other than directly related to said God.

Quote

Also, if one must believe in god in order to hold a belief in ID, how exactly is that scientific?
How is it not?

Quote
I simply meant that a universe with God is a very different one than without.
How?


To the person who lives within a limited sphere of perception, there is no difference at all. But the universe itself, would be totally different. But you must realize there is no such choice- if there is a God it necessarily means that there is no other possible reality, never was, never will be and that all such talk is total fantasy. contrariwise, if there is no god then there is also no possibility or need of a god.

Quote
And that is a specious argument for a couple reasons.  One, it's entirely possible that there are other worlds, or other universes that could create worlds with life.  Two, their definition of the best world is based on an Earth bias.  Three, (and this is a religious objection) why couldn't your god create a more perfect world?
I think the argument is not based on earth bias, but it can only make the argument if they assume that the laws of nature and the elements are as they are. It might be possible to have a completely different sort of universe, I suppose. What Nature's Destiny is saying is that the universe that we find ourselves in is a completely cohesive whole.

Quote
Random from the scientific sense means that we can't determine or predict the exact time, location, etc. of the mutations that will occur.  We can also discern no plan.  It's non-causal.  That doesn't have any implications when it comes to god belief.  One is free to hold a non-belief in god and decide that it all happened naturally.  One could believe that god set up the initial conditions and let everything run on its own.  One could believe that god makes all the mutations happen and has a specific plan for letting things play out a specific way.  We just can't determine which, if any, of those is correct through scientific means.  So, we call it random.
I don't think that is what people are taking away from their textbooks. But it is fair enough.

Quote

This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through science?
Hmm, I don't remember answering that specific question. I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.

Quote

This answer meant nothing at all.


If there is or isn't a God, all will appear exactly the same to your eyes. In that sense it is nothing. If there is a God this is a radically different situation. Supposing that you have a consciousness that animates and transcends your body, this will eventually make a big difference to you - that between life and nonlife. A God universe is ten trillion times better.

Quote
Certainly we are superior to all other animals in figuring out ways of killing each other.
It's time we grew up. Belief in Jehovah or the things that are taught about that demonic entity is a real impediment to adulthood, in my humble opinion.

Quote

So, you reject the notion that Miller is a confused IDist?  Good.  We've made some progress.
It seems the one to twist words is you. First you say I believe ID because my belief in God requires it. I explain that I could work evolution into my belief in god and point out what has been pointed out by others here - that even people committed to evolution can believe in God. (But yes, I have indeed learned here that evolution is more comatible with belief in God than I thought it would be.) Now, Puck says that Miller disagrees with ID scientifically but accepts it philosophically. I still find that slightly incoherent. Also, what I understand of Miller is that while he thinks the setup had a tremendous amount of freedom to play itself out, he also believes in an interfering, omnipotent and omniscient God. Yes, I think he is an IDist. Just not of the tinkering sort.

What I can't seem to get across here is that the divide is bigger between Dawkins and Miller than it is between Miller and Behe.

Quote

How is reality different if god exists?  God exists or doesn't, correct?  If we learn that god doesn't exist, does that change the reality of the world we were living in that didn't have a god?  If we learn that god does exist, does that change the reality of the world we were living in that did have a god?
I was not speaking about a personal reaction to a belief. Why did you think I was? If there isn't a God all is material and ultimately will die out, perhaps never to rise again. Death is agony because one does not want one's consciousness to cease. Life is certainly fascinating, in a bitter way.

If there is a God then all in the universe is a direct emanation and part of that God, no one and nothing can be excluded, and consciousness is free to develop forever.

Henry,

Quote

Fortuitious for the survivors. Not so much for the much larger number of species that have gone extinct.

Yeah, but I was talking more about the fortuitious events leading to life and to the cellular systems being improbable without intelligence.

Puck,

Quote

The problem is that you couldnt prove that I stacked the deck.  To prove that I stacked the deck, you would have to see me stacking the deck, or explain how I was cheating.
Yeah, proof might be hard but eventually you can't keep accepting it if someone keeps winning every poker hand.

Quote
Behe thinks that he can prove that God interferes.  Miller doesnt know if you can prove God or not, but he does know that Behe's proof isnt any good.
Well, he does not speak of proof, but he certainly thinks he can show very strong probability. As for Miller, perhaps someone else, maybe Matzke's article might have something in it, but that Miller argument is just not too close. I just don't see why you guys think Miller really has given Behe a run for the money.

Quote

Behe and Dembski are abusing the typical assumptions of science.  They are providing an assumption...then providing 2-3 cases of that assumption possibly being correct.  The 2-3 cases that they provide;flagellum, eye, etc. are all heavily contested.
they have more than 2 or 3. I think there are lots. but good - let the contesting continue.

Quote
Behe got 3 aces, and then claimed that he had proven that the deck was stacked.
what do you have in mind here?

Quote
What you probably dont realize, is that if you go get a shuffled deck of cards, and deal them all out, the odds of them being in that order is just as rare....
Doesnt make sense?  Well, odds dont deal with the desirability of the results.  Sure, to us, the odds of a perfectly arranged deck are much higher than a random deck.  The problem is that statistics says that the odds are the same.
Dembski abuses this little trick.  He shows that the odds of life evolving are very, very slim.  He ignores the fact that it doesnt make the evolution of life extraordinary.  You dont consider most decks of cards "extraordinary" despite the fact that it is incredibly rare that they will be in that order!

Dembski abuses this little trick.  He shows that the odds of life evolving are very, very slim.  He ignores the fact that it doesnt make the evolution of life extraordinary.  You dont consider most decks of cards "extraordinary" despite the fact that it is incredibly rare that they will be in that order!
 Yes, of course I realize that any random shuffle of the deck, if you specified exactly that as the perfect deal, would be just as unlikely as any other.

What do you mean odds don't deal with the desirability of results? Odds themselves don't know, but we know. It is precisely the odds of getting the needed result that we are calculating.

How do you surmise that life would evolve no matter what shuffle of the deck occurs? That is what you are saying!

Quote
Better analysis, and a better understanding of certain genes moved the percentage up 99.4%
Then this is a clue to some big pieces we are missing. There is more to this picture.

Quote

Why is the difference profound?
Your just a hairless walking talking ape.
Oh please.

Quote
we have constantly found apes that are showing more and more hairless. with a more bipedal stance, and even eventually talking apes.
We have?

Chris,

Quote
I do think that science will ultimately prove whether species are capable of mutating into new species, and whether they are capable of generating new body plans in the ways described by Darwinian evolution.
I agree, but I am curious what kind of proof you would require.
That is hard to envision because it is in the realm of unknown processes.

I guess all I can say is that I think the evidence and the reasonings of ID have more merit than you think they do. And I don't think the case is as tight by the other side.

Quote
The point is that to calculate the level of unlikelyhood for something such as the flagellum to any degree of accuracy is pretty much impossible at the moment. I wish it wasn't it would make my job a lot easier.
I think there is a lot of truth to that. Nonetheless, we can and do at least begin to examine the issue. but for this reason, it makes sense to be less emotional about what we don't know enough about.  
What job is that?

Puck,

Quote
They cannot understand religious beliefs outside of their own
Miller's God and Avo's God are basically the same.
You know, Puck, I actually find this upsetting. I have no religion, I identify with a large number of different world spiritual outlooks, and about the only one or two that I consider really narrow and detrimental are Catholicism and Islam, with certain forms of protestantism close behind.

Alright, I see you didn't mean it quite the way I thought you did. What about you - isn't your view of God's actions somewhat similar to Miller?

Russell,
Quote
I've never quite bought this "we all worship the same God" thing. The deity worshipped by Christian fundamentalists has one set of properties (consigns gay people to he11, had a human son, spoke to Amos, Jeremiah, Pat Robertson, doesn't have much of a sense of humor...). The deity recognized by, say, Reform Jews has very different properties. Miller refers to his God as He, Avo refers to hers as She...
I agree with you, Russell. Perhaps deep down we do all worship the same God, but that is so deep down it can be pretty inaccessible. That is why I said the terrible things that I said above.

The beliefs of mainstream Christianity are in my opinion very detrimental and I do undersand why Dawkins thinks it is the root of all evil. Over at Telic Thoughts, they were very incensed when Dawkins said that a religious upbringing was a form of child abuse. Of course, that was way over the top and they trotted out studies that show religious-home kids were more emotionally sound. I got curious as to why Dawkins would be so outragious so I looked up the incident. And it turns out that some woman told him that as a teenager her friend was suddenly killed, and that according to the adults around her, her friend that she was currently mourning was burning in #### becuse she wasn't saved. I started going on a website and learned a lot of shocking things about the way hellfire and damnation is bludgeoned into the heads of the faithful, and has been for centuries. I read Catholic children's primers vividly describing small children going to #### and burning in red hot ovens and how they scream with pain, and how they will never, never get out. They had quotes from famous preachers who told their congregations that they will witness their closest loved ones in #### and feel no pity. They have descriptions of the extreme sufferings God will inflict that are difficult to use another term for than demonic fantasy. And both Augustine and Aquinas taught that the saved will enjoy the sight of the sufferings of the damned.

I made some remarks at Telic thoughts to the effect that Christians need to start thinking about why they have brought about such fear and hostility on the part of the secular humanist community. I asked them, why did Darwin say - Christianity is a damnable doctrine that he did not understand why anyone would want it to be true?

They were silent.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2006,20:05   

Quote
I guess all I can say is that I think the evidence and the reasonings of ID have more merit than you think they do. And I don't think the case is as tight by the other side.


Avo, Im going to keep this uncharacteristically short.

I think ID has tons of evidence, and I believe that it has a great deal of merit.  Ken Miller would agree with me.

The problem, and you seem to completely miss this, is that ID is a philosophical conjecture.  
You think we are attacking the belief in design.  We are not attacking the belief in design, we are attacking ID as a scientific theory.

New scientific theories are not created because they make a lot of sense....they are created because they have explanatory value, and because they are testable and provable(either absolutely or empirically).
ID skips all of the "meat" of a scientific theory, and just relies on a fairly reasonable(and might I add popular) philosophical conjecture.  No one is telling you that ID is wrong....NO ONE....we are just telling you that ID is not science.(well except the atheists....and they reject it for philosophical reasons too)

Quote
A God universe is ten trillion times better.

This is an invocation of Pascal's Wager.  In case you arent familiar with the fatal flaw of Pascal; he attempted to rationalize a belief in God.  There are several problems with the actual wager, but the lesson is that you cannot rationalize beliefs.  Read up on Pascal please!!!!

Alright, one last thing....I apologize, I believe i misunderstood you.
Miller is closer to Behe in the theological department.
Of course, in the scientific department, Miller is nowhere near a confused IDist....ID is scientific right?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,01:58   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 03 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
This is very shi##y of you Russell. Let GCT go back and show where I twisted his arguments.

And I responded to this already...Here's what I said.
Quote
It was YOU who said that evolution is atheistic. Now, you say that people can believe in god and accept evolution?

Also, you do believe in ID because you believe in god. Is it possible to believe in ID and be atheist? No, it isn't.

Back to what you said....
Quote
I think I already addressed this. comments like this make me think I am speaking with simpletons. Am I speaking with simpletons?

So, now you resort to personal attacks?
No, you didn't address this. You simply made the assertion that the universe would be a lot different with a god than without. The problem with your statement is the same problem that you have with a lot of your statements, namely a complete lack of evidence coupled with a complete inability to separate philosophy from real life. You have NO CLUE AT ALL whether there truly is a god or not, and you have NO CLUE AT ALL how things might or might not be different. No one does.
Quote
Why yes, I do. What did you have in mind? It sounded like a big landscaping project.

It's not simply a big landscaping project. Your flippant dismissal is par for the ID course, however. 'ID only deals with complex things and shorelines aren't complex enough, blah blah blah.' That is nothing more than a cheap rationalization for a "theory" that can't pull its own weight. Good job, you've got the slippery evasion tactic down pat.
Quote
Because I have read books which have convinced me it ISN'T TRUE. It isn't because of my belief in God. The only thing about my belief in god is that I could never suppose that existence itself was anything other than directly related to said God.

And those books have lied to you. You've also admitted that you haven't read the books that could convince you that it IS true. In my opinion, that's some pretty bad scholarship you've got going on there. Plus, you're convinced that ID is true, even in the face of no evidence for it, yet evolution is not true even though there are mountains of evidence for it. Nice.
Quote
How is it not?

Because science does not presuppose god, that's why. The fact that you can't even understand how an a priori assumption of god violates science means that you really have no standing at all in this discussion.
Quote
To the person who lives within a limited sphere of perception, there is no difference at all. But the universe itself, would be totally different. But you must realize there is no such choice- if there is a God it necessarily means that there is no other possible reality, never was, never will be and that all such talk is total fantasy. contrariwise, if there is no god then there is also no possibility or need of a god.

How would the universe be different? You have no frickin' clue at all!
If there is a god, there's no other possible reality? Says who? God couldn't have made a different reality? That's a howler.
If there is no god, then what does it matter if there is no need for a god?
Quote
I think the argument is not based on earth bias, but it can only make the argument if they assume that the laws of nature and the elements are as they are. It might be possible to have a completely different sort of universe, I suppose. What Nature's Destiny is saying is that the universe that we find ourselves in is a completely cohesive whole.

Yes, the argument is based on Earth bias. The laws of nature and elements as they are? If the universe had a slightly different law of nature, then the laws of nature would be different and then somehow less perfect? If the bias isn't an Earth bias, then it is a present universe bias. Either way, it's all claptrap. They have no idea what possible universes there are/were/whatever, and neither do you. Postulating about how this is the best possible universe of a sample population of 1 or infinity is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Quote
I don't think that is what people are taking away from their textbooks. But it is fair enough.

What people take away from their textbooks does not change the actual definition. So, once again you are shown that evolution does not mean no god.
Quote
Hmm, I don't remember answering that specific question. I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.

So, you didn't answer my question, but you felt compelled to go on some tangent? Nice. Is that an attempt at obfuscation, or what?
Also, how do you suppose that we will find out more about the things you listed? Will IDers do it? Will ID lead us to answers to these questions?
Quote
If there is or isn't a God, all will appear exactly the same to your eyes. In that sense it is nothing. If there is a God this is a radically different situation. Supposing that you have a consciousness that animates and transcends your body, this will eventually make a big difference to you - that between life and nonlife. A God universe is ten trillion times better.

Again, you have no clue about this. Having a god does not necessarily mean that we have souls and will transcend. It does not mean that we will have life after death. Where did you get the idea that a god couldn't create a universe where people live and die and don't have life after death? Also, how does one determine that a universe with a god is ten trillion times better? Once again, you've shown that you can't separate philosophy from reality, and that you make wild assumptions to come to your statistics.
Quote
It seems the one to twist words is you. First you say I believe ID because my belief in God requires it. I explain that I could work evolution into my belief in god and point out what has been pointed out by others here - that even people committed to evolution can believe in God. (But yes, I have indeed learned here that evolution is more comatible with belief in God than I thought it would be.) Now, Puck says that Miller disagrees with ID scientifically but accepts it philosophically. I still find that slightly incoherent. Also, what I understand of Miller is that while he thinks the setup had a tremendous amount of freedom to play itself out, he also believes in an interfering, omnipotent and omniscient God. Yes, I think he is an IDist. Just not of the tinkering sort.

Straddle the fence some more. Twist my argument, then accuse me of doing it. Nice spin.
Miller accepts evolution. For you to insist that Miller is a closet IDist is completely specious.
(BTW, those "others here" that said one can believe in god and accept evolution...I'm one of them! The fact that you imply that I'm arguing that one must be atheist to accept evolution, when I've specifically stated otherwise is completely intellectually dishonest.)
Quote
What I can't seem to get across here is that the divide is bigger between Dawkins and Miller than it is between Miller and Behe.

No, it isn't. Dawkins and Miller have philosophical differences, but in the science realm they are much, much closer than Miller and Behe.
Quote
I was not speaking about a personal reaction to a belief. Why did you think I was? If there isn't a God all is material and ultimately will die out, perhaps never to rise again. Death is agony because one does not want one's consciousness to cease. Life is certainly fascinating, in a bitter way.

If there is a God then all in the universe is a direct emanation and part of that God, no one and nothing can be excluded, and consciousness is free to develop forever.

I wasn't necessarily speaking about a personal reaction either. The universe is what it is. There is a god or there isn't. We have no idea. We can't tell if there is a god or not. Would any of the equations change if we found out? No. That's the point. You have no idea whether there is or not, so you have no idea what would or would not change in the other condition (whichever that other condition is) were true.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,02:21   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 02 2006,21:46)
Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting better made us much, much weaker.....

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better?

[Emphasis mine]
What's all this talk about "better"? What makes us "better" than other primates?

Scientifically, you can't make that statement. I know you are quoting someone else, but you are using the argument yourself, and along with statements about how we are the kings of this planet or somesuch, I have to seriously wonder. You seem to have some sort of superiority complex over the other animals on this planet, and you want to impart that onto the science as if it is part of a scientific argument. Well, it isn't. You might want to stop using it.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,03:34   

I do not see any positive scientific evidence for design, is their anything specific that you see as good evidence?

Quote
the flagellum as it now is cannot have any parts removed
So, if that is the definition of irreducible complexity then its completely useless. No-one is saying that when a part was added the the parts it binds to were exactly the same as they are now. Several different bacteria have flagellum with various parts missing. Saying that the Ecoli flagellum could not have evolved because you couldnt gradually assemble the parts in their current form is attacking a complete strawman argument.

Quote
How can we be 99.4 the same as a species with 1/3 our brain size? a species with a different form of locomotion? a species which cannot speak?


That is the question science is now beginning to answer. In regards to the chromosome number, the prediction was that two ancestral chromosomes fused to form one, this is exactly what happened, and we are able to line up the sequences quite nicely. Some of the differences you mentioned are caused by quite small differences in the DNA. Remeber that very small changes, especially in promoter regions and transcription factors, can cause very large phenotypic changes. The more we understand about evolution and development, the more these differences are beoming understandable.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,05:20   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 03 2006,00:00)
Because I have read books which have convinced me it ISN'T TRUE. It isn't because of my belief in God. The only thing about my belief in god is that I could never suppose that existence itself was anything other than directly related to said God.

To expand on what I said above:

The books you've read that convinced you that evolution isn't true, were written by people who convinced themselves evolution isn't true because their god said so.  Their god told them evolution was bunk, so they went out and figured out how they could make convincing arguments that evolution is bunk.  Nevermind the fact that they formed their conclusion then looked for data....

But, by taking their word for it, you are basically letting their god decide for you that evolution is not true.  I don't know if that's better or worse than if your god told you it's not true.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,06:26   

Imagine youre out walking your dog one day, and you happen upon Millie, that spry little old lady thats just moved in three doors down. In the course of small talk, Millie says that, what with raising kids, juggling jobs, etc., shes never had the time to learn as much mathematics as she would have liked. But now shes 72, widowed, kids on their own just for the mental exercise, shes trying to learn it now, if only to an educated laymans level.

In a moment of neighborliness, you volunteer to spend Thursday evenings tutoring her. You cover the basics. You explain whats the difference between algebra and geometry. You go over some basic theorems. You spend 3 consecutive weeks on the elegance of the Pythagorean proof. You show how trigonometry might be used in calculating space shuttle trajectories. After a couple of months, youre ready to introduce the idea of the calculus.

You bone up on it yourself (its been a while! ), you prepare a few illustrative examples. You meet Millie at the usual venue, the local Barnes & Noble caf, with an armful of books. But before you get underway, Millie has just one question. She was at the beauty salon earlier that week for her blue rinse, when she learned from Madge, the hairdresser, that 8 wasnt really a number at all; it had been made up out of whole cloth by some pointy headed professor to plug the holes in the theory of mathematics.

What do you say?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,06:48   

Re " I simply meant that a universe with God is a very different one than without."
Re "But the universe itself, would be totally different. "

But, how would a person know what the differences are, unless that person had seen at least one universe of each type?

Re "Yeah, but I was talking more about the fortuitious events leading to life and to the cellular systems being improbable without intelligence."

An evolving gene pool can try various things that are within its "reach", and it can "remember" previous results. Those are two of the properties we associate with intelligence. So that one form of intelligence is already presumed by the current theory. So even if intelligence is required, why would that form of it be insufficient?

Re "I guess all I can say is that I think the evidence and the reasonings of ID have more merit than you think they do. And I don't think the case is as tight by the other side."

Scientific evidence consists of consistent repeatable patterns in observations, such that those patterns logically follow from the premise (or hypothesis) being tested. Descriptions of evidence for evolution refer to lots of observed patterns that are explained by the theory. I haven't yet seen where anybody actually gets around to describing the patterns that would serve as evidence for I.D. or some form of it.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,06:55   

Quote

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better?


Actually, this was part of the expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. DASD trial. Humans have not "lost" a bunch of genetic material that chimps have. Instead, scientists looking at the structure of human chromosome #2 can see that it is a fusion of two chromosomes in the chimp genome, complete with extra telomeres and everything. The genetic material was re-arranged, not lost.

PZ Myers explains why Casey Luskin got it all wrong in this article.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,14:49   

Quote
Instead, scientists looking at the structure of human chromosome #2 can see that it is a fusion of two chromosomes in the chimp genome, complete with extra telomeres and everything. The genetic material was re-arranged, not lost.
 You know, it is interesting to note that this very same writer realizes that and has written that in other essays. He thinks it is evidence of gene manipulation. Perhaps he was making a point here that this is an important difference.

So I have to leave town for several days and didn't want people wondering if I had fallen off a cliff.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,17:28   

Quote


I'm completely lost now


yup.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,19:22   

Interesting thread.  Kudos to Avocationist for being eloquent and civil, even if I disagree with her conclusions about many things.

While everything here has piqued my interest to some degree, I wanted to comment on the "deck of cards" analogy.  There have been a boatload of analogies using the deck of cards to demonstrate the potential end products of an essentially random process.  Shuffle then deal.  See what comes up.  Highly improbable.  Mmhmm, we know that.

The cards here usually represent some natural process, such as the random motions of zillions of particles in the early earth, or the uberzillions of elementary particles throughout the ubervast universe.  Or at a slightly larger scales, the cards might represent amino acids or proteins.  The analogy is attempting to show that you can't just randomly "shuffle" these particles or molecules and expect anything coherent to come out, especially given the sheer quantity of "cards" in a deck the size the universe.  Consider that a regular deck of cards has, if my calculation is correct, over 8x10^67 different combinations of cards.  That's more than 8 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion different ways those cards can line up after a good shuffle.  Obviously, the number of possible arrangements in the "primordial soup" of the early oceans is somewhat bigger.  William Dembski at one point cites an earlier paper by Frank Salisbury, who calculates that even a medium sized protein 300 amino acids long, has a one in 10^600 chance of forming randomly from the primordial soup.  Which, if Dembski's "maths" are to be believed, is a greater number than all the possible configurations of all the particles in the entire universe during its entire existance, and then some.  So, given that life as we know it requires a fairly narrow range of "deals" in order to exist at all, this "random shuffle" argument is regularly and erroneously trotted out as proof of the zero probability that the particles could have just dealt themselves the perfect hand; ie, there must have been a creator.

Why erroneously?  It seems to me that this analogy is incomplete.  It only tells a part of the story, namely randomness.  But nature functions on more than just chaos.  Say that out loud a few times.  "Nature functions on more than just chaos."  

In reality, nature at all scales can be thought of as being governed by a set of interacting rules, or laws.  The important ones are what I like to call sticky laws.  These are the sort of laws that make matter stick together.  Atoms and molecules obey the sticky rules of electromagnetism.  Larger structures such as rocks, planets, stars and galaxies obey the sticky laws of gravity.  Everything we see around us is a result of these sticky laws.  There are others, but these particular sticky laws will suffice to explain why the "random shuffle" analogy is incomplete.  Random processes and law work simultaneously, thus any "deck of cards" analogy needs to include both to be effective as an explanatory tool.  

So what if we apply one single sticky law to the random shuffling process?  Remember that a deck of cards has more than 8 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion different combinations.  Our objective is to shuffle this deck randomly until we reach a desired configuration.  It doesn't matter what configuration you pick.  I used the deck's original out of the box configuration: Ace through King in each of the four suits.  Step three below is the "sticky law".   Yes, in my geekihood, I tried this out at home.  Went out and bought a fresh deck of cards and everything.  You should, too.  

1) Shuffle the deck up nice and good.  
2) Then look through the deck.  
3) Anywhere you have two or more cards in a row, pull them out and put a little flap of masking tape around the short edges.  (The sticky law)
4) Then put them back in the deck, and reshuffle.  
5) Now look through it again, and tape any new combinations you find.  
6) Keep doing this until you have the deck in order.

When I tested out this process, it did not take me 8 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion shuffles.  It took me about 60.  Id be interested to see how many it took you.*

So my point here is that all instances where a creationist attempts to refute life via probability have failed and will likely continue to do so.  Life isn't strictly a matter of sheer chance.  Creationists -always- neglect a crucial factor when discussing any natural "random" process of this sort.  That factor is the laws of physics, which very accurately describe the ways in which quarks have a tendency to form sub atomic particles, sub atomic particles tend to form atoms, atoms will tend to form molecules, on up the chain.  "Tend" is even a rather soft word for this feature of the natural world.  Put particles near each other, and they WILL lump together via well understood processes.  Its chance PLUS law that counts here.

This additional step in the "deck of cards" analogy nicely mimics the way in which nature operates.  There is much that is random.  There is also much that is NOT random, and must happen as a result of the sticky laws of nature.  All things in the universe are subject to both randomness and law simultaneously.  In this way, big things are grown from small things.  Small things are grown from even smaller things. This process works across the scales of size in the universe.  From subatomic particles, to atoms and molecules, to planets and galaxies, all things have a tendency to stick together.  With one simple sticky law, weve seen that a basically impossible scenario is easily transformed into one that is realistic.  Some might even say inevitable.  

Creationists apparently refuse to acknowledge that the laws of stickiness exist.  So I wonder what they really object toevolution, or just plain physics?

*The whole process of shuffling, taping, and reshuffling is not for the faint of heart.  At about three hours long, the process can get a little tedious, and the shuffling itself is a bear.  Its best to do while youre watching some mindless TV show, or on a slow day, if at all.  The main point is that across all aspects of the Intelligent Design speculation, crucial undeniable facts of nature are simply taboo and must not be acknowledged, lest the movement fall flat in the public eye.  Bad, bad analogies for bad, bad science.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2006,22:00   

Quote
The whole process of shuffling, taping, and reshuffling is not for the faint of heart.


Couldn't you get a computer software engineer to write a simulation program which would save on sticky tape.

Hey, what about DaveScot. He doesn't seem too busy these days.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,06:06   

Kudos to JayRay on the card shuffling illustration. Excellent point.

Sure, you could probably get a computer simulation to do it effortlessly, but then, of course, the IDers will say, "all bets are off, because the computer was the result of intelligent design." Which - of course - makes about as much sense as that the cards were shuffled by an intelligent agent, but as a bright shiny object to distract the easily (or willingly) distractable, it'll probably work.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,07:00   

I debated with myself for awhile on whether or not to program the thing. In the end I decided to go with hands-on for a few reasons.  

One, my shuffling chops are better than my programming chops.  

Two, its easy to be suspicious of computers.  Diebold.  Modern slot machines.  

Three, even if you trust the programmer not to cheat, doing something tactilely is almost always more interesting and instructive than watching the same task virtually.

In this case, its also a bit more tedious, but just look at the numbers.  There is a major difference between 10*8^67 and 60ish.

Maybe one day I'll work out the code for kicks.  Or I could enter into bargain with Dave Scot.  He could teach me how to program the thing, and I'll teach him a bit about manners.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,14:56   

Jay Ray's demo is a nice one.

However, the whole deck of cards analogy is a red herring. The odds of getting a specific hand only mean something if you specify the desired hand in advance. As has been noted, every possible hand is equally unlikely. The only reason a royal flush is remarkable is because we define it as desirable in advance.

The same thing applies to the argument about life. Even if you could positively establish that life on earth was exceedingly unlikely, it doesn't prove anything unless you assume that life is a desired outcome.

But of course, if you assume life is desired in advance, then you're assuming God in advance. (Or at least, some entity capable of creating life.) It's a circular argument, one that proves nothing at all.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,16:58   

Quote

You know, it is interesting to note that this very same writer realizes that and has written that in other essays. He thinks it is evidence of gene manipulation. Perhaps he was making a point here that this is an important difference.


Really? Let's recall the claim at issue:

Quote

This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better?


The only "point" the "writer" made with a claim of "loss" was concerning the remarkable extent of his ignorance.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 04 2006,22:59

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2006,17:46   

Quote
However, the whole deck of cards analogy is a red herring. The odds of getting a specific hand only mean something if you specify the desired hand in advance. As has been noted, every possible hand is equally unlikely. The only reason a royal flush is remarkable is because we define it as desirable in advance.


Wellllll, yes and no.  Any analogy is going to have its weaknesses, and this analogy is no different in that respect.  But I think there's a way to avoid the specific weakness you mention.  This sort of analogy is best used as a description of a process, not necessarily as the end result of that process.  Where you start and where you end up aren't the point, really.  Rather, at least in this example, its a way of showing how one gets to here from there, from chaos to order, via the sticky processes commonly found in nature.  Analogies can be thorny, but they can be a convenient way of summing up an otherwise confounding mass of data, so long as you know what it is you're trying to show.

Getting that message across to the target audience is the real trick.  Teachers are the most undervalued occupation in the world, IMO.  Especially the good ones.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,11:43   

Jay Ray

Don't get me wrong. I like your analogy for its intended purpose. It's a great way to demonstrate how evolution operates in a stepwise fashion, unlike re-shuffling a deck over and over until you get a perfect bridge hand or something.

But your analogy still contains conscious design. You chose the target sequence in advance, and then you went through after every shuffle and chose which cards to tape together. You've shown how the process can be speeded up enormously, but not how it can happen without purposeful intervention.

Let me try expanding on your analogy to make my point. Suppose we think of the randomized deck (after your step 1) as representing the pre-biotic earth, and your final configuration as representing today's earth, with its current diversity of life.

Mr. ID/Creationist will argue that your analogy still shows that intelligent intervention is essential. An undirected process can't work. As "proof" (says Mr. ID/C), try this:

1) Shuffle the deck up nice and good.
2) Then go through the deck without looking.
3) Every now and then, select two or more cards in a row, pull them out and put a little flap of masking tape around the short edges. Again, no looking at the cards before you pick them.
4) Then put them back in the deck, and reshuffle.
5) Keep doing this until all the cards are taped together.
6) Check to see if the deck is in order. If not, start all over.

How many rounds will it take? Probably the same 8 x 10^67, or whatever it is. See, says Mr. ID/C? This just proves that intelligent intervention is required. Whether you try to get there in one shuffle, or by taping cards together in multiple steps, the probability of getting that exact order of cards is unrealistically small.

The thing is, he's right, but only because you agreed in advance on the desired result.

Similarly, Mr. ID/C is quite sure that the current state of life on earth is also the desired result. And since life is much more complicated than a deck of cards, it must be even less probable that life evolved without intelligent intervention.

This is the viewpoint I'm trying to debunk. I'm trying to point out to Mr. (or Ms.) ID/C that this argument depends on the prior assumption that life is the desired result. This means that they're assuming the pre-existence of some entity that a) desired this result, and b) was capable of making it happen. IOW, they're assuming God (or the equivalent) exists and desires life on earth, in order to prove that God is responsible for life on earth.

If you don't assume God to begin with, you can't assume that life is the desired result. In that case, life is just a result. And of course, there is nothing we can say about the probability of one result from a sample of one.

I hope that clarifies my point, and apologize if I seemed to be disparaging your analogy. It wasn't intended; I just didn't express myself very well.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,12:01   

good improvement on his analogy.....

but one point would remain the same.....and this is what avocationist and others seem to miss.  No matter how you shuffled, and how you taped the cards together.  The odds of having the cards in the final order are exactly the same.

This is how Dembski can get such a high "improbability" for life.  

Once you understand statistical probability....his argument, and almost all arguments of a similiar nature seem remarkably ridiculous.

Hopefully....we can just help Avo understand the math....analogies are inherently flawed, the actual example is almost always what you are trying to explain ;)

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,12:07   

Yeah, the deck of cards analogy has at least two problems. One is that some cards "stick" together, which was already mentioned. Also that nobody knows how many of those 52 factoral sequences would still produce a highly diverse ecosystem, even if not identical to the one we've got.

Henry

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2006,13:33   

I see what you're saying, Qetzal.  I really do.  It almost seems an unavoidable consequence.  Aside from finding life on another planet, computer models have the most promise.  Computer models have their own flaws, of course; someone has to make the software.  And even the most sophisticated computer models cower at the complexity and interdependance of natural systems.  

No teaching method is perfect.  In this case, I think stressing the process and not the result is an improvement, and every little bit counts.  If we were to abandon instruction because of the inadequacies of the tools, we may as well close down all the schools and curl up in the fetal position.  Better to improve the tools and keep on plugging away.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,19:05   

Hi Puck,

Quote
I think ID has tons of evidence, and I believe that it has a great deal of merit.  Ken Miller would agree with me.

Well, maybe, but I thought KM thinks the design is undetectable.  In which case it has no merit.

Quote
The problem, and you seem to completely miss this, is that ID is a philosophical conjecture.
No, it is more than that. Sure, as a philosophical conjecture, you can posit nearly anything, but ID does try to interpret empirical facts. And, I think, popular evolution theory can also be accused of waxing philosophical.

Quote
This is an invocation of Pascal's Wager.  In case you arent familiar with the fatal flaw of Pascal; he attempted to rationalize a belief in God.  There are several problems with the actual wager, but the lesson is that you cannot rationalize beliefs.  Read up on Pascal please!!!!
This is the second time you brought him up and apparently I found his idea repugnant for the very reason that you say it is flawed. Or wait, maybe not. I am not sure what it means to say you cannot rationalize beliefs. Of course you can and you had better at least try. No, I found it repugnant because it is absurd to say that it is safer to believe in God in case he really is a whacked-out petty tyrant who will blame you for not knowing if he exists - I mean you can't believe in God because it is a safer bet. And why should I read Pascal when I already find his thought silly? I think you made a lot of assumptions about what I meant when I said a universe with God is better - even tho I explained it! It has nothing to do with Pascal's wager.

Quote
Miller is closer to Behe in the theological department.
Of course, in the scientific department, Miller is nowhere near a confused IDist....ID is scientific right?
Miller and Behe both believe in a God who is the cause of our world and takes an interest in it. The difference is in how or where the interference line gets drawn. Miller even thinks God may influence random mutations on a quantum level which appears to be chance, and Behe thinks God might just create a flagellum de novo - somehow -
These two positions are not very far apart no matter what Miller may say. Miller does not accept the kind of interference that Behe envisions to create the flagellum "in a puff of smoke" but their ideas of God's interference and design/causation are just not that far apart, and Dawkins and Miller just really aren't that close.

GCT,

Quote
Let GCT go back and show where I twisted his arguments.

And I responded to this already...Here's what I said.
No need to repeat the last post - I have completely lost track of the thread of the conversation and if you think I have twisted your words you need to show how. Not that I expect you to do that level of research at this point, - but I did not know to what you were referring.

Quote
So, now you resort to personal attacks?
No, you didn't address this.  You simply made the assertion that the universe would be a lot different with a god than without.
Alright, I'm guilty. I found it a bit frustrating that when I say the universe with God is quite different than without, that you took it to mean that the laws of gravity or something would be different.

Quote
The problem with your statement is the same problem that you have with a lot of your statements, namely a complete lack of evidence coupled with a complete inability to separate philosophy from real life.  
There is no separation of philosophy from real life.  What a bizarre thought. But of course, one can realize that one's philosophical opinions are more or less provisional. Which they are.

Quote
You have NO CLUE AT ALL whether there truly is a god or not, and you have NO CLUE AT ALL how things might or might not be different.
You give up too easily. There might be a temendous amount we don't know, but we can surely surmise that if there is no God there is also no soul, no reincarnation or afterlife, no conscious intention behind the universe, that matter is the primary reality and things like intelligence are emergent properties of matter. Whereas if there is a God then something which has the property of self-existence and something like a universal mind would be the causal to matter, and that therefore all things are really one thing at their origin, and that something other than dead matter is the source of our existence.

Quote
Good job, you've got the slippery evasion tactic down pat.
No, you need to explain to me why you think a person or people altering a shoreline would be detectable as design.

Quote
You've also admitted that you haven't read the books that could convince you that it IS true.
Like Mayr's book? I am trying to read it, but it is very simplistic and makes bold statements with little detail. It is going over stuff that I have already read refutations of. But maybe it will get better. My main reason for reading it is to better understand why you guys think the evidence is so good.

Quote
Plus, you're convinced that ID is true, even in the face of no evidence for it, yet evolution is not true even though there are mountains of evidence for it.
Remember, many of the mountains of evidence are data which are not in dispute, but the interpretation of that evidence, and certain extrapolations from that evidence are what is in dispute.

Quote
Because science does not presuppose god, that's why.  The fact that you can't even understand how an a priori assumption of god violates science means that you really have no standing at all in this discussion.
Neither should science presuppose no God, and despite what Puck and some others have said, this is quite often out there in the public domain. Judge Jones said that there is a centuries old agreement against the supposition of God, and that ID invokes and 'permits' the supernatural. How can the supernatural not be permitted, and why must we call God supernatural? An a priori assumption of God does not prevent a person from doing perfectly good science, even in the arena in which it might matter, so long as they are willing to be proved wrong.

Quote
How would the universe be different?  You have no frickin' clue at all!
If there is a god, there's no other possible reality?  Says who?  God couldn't have made a different reality?  That's a howler.
If there is no god, then what does it matter if there is no need for a god?
 I mean that a universe with a God is a different ballgame than one without. Whichever one we are in, it is the only possibility. If there is a God, it means that God caused existence and that matter could not have caused itself. If there is no God and matter is eternal, then God is an imaginary idea. I am not sure what you mean by couldn't God have made a different reality. I think that you mean couldn't he have made a different universe. I suppose he could but that is really a matter of detail - this type of story or that type of story. God IS the universe, whatever sort s/he morphs Itself into.

Quote
Either way, it's all claptrap.  They have no idea what possible universes there are/were/whatever, and neither do you.
Given the elements that exist, they are all finely tuned and cannot be more finely tuned to produce life as we know it.

Quote
What people take away from their textbooks does not change the actual definition.  So, once again you are shown that evolution does not mean no god.
Textbooks have stated, and the Weisel 38 have stated, that evolution theory proposes an unplanned and unguided process, and many or most evolutionists expect or hope that life itself was capable of self-assembly.

You asked this: This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through
science?

And I answered this: I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.

And then you replied:  So, you didn't answer my question, but you felt compelled to go on some tangent?  Nice.  Is that an attempt at obfuscation, or what?
***********

Why not rephrase the question? You spend a lot of time accusing me of not answering or twisting words and I spend a lot of time wondering where we got lost. Perhaps if you included more than the final sentence in an exchange. If I don't answer right, clarify.

I have no idea where your question came from - I do hold out the hope that science will prove something about consciousness such that it will make materialism untenable. Or perhaps some other types of proofs will occur. As it stands now, no one can prove God to another. The best one person can do is to help another one to expand their thoughts so that he can discover it for himself.

As for who will be the discoverers of the limits of change through mutation, it doesn't matter. If IDists are in the minority, then it will likely not be them.

Quote
Having a god does not necessarily mean that we have souls and will transcend.  It does not mean that we will have life after death.
Perhaps not, but at least the possibility is there, whereas if there is no God, the possibility is most likely not there.

Quote
Where did you get the idea that a god couldn't create a universe where people live and die and don't have life after death?
I think it is very likely that it is indeed impossible due to the nature of God and life that there is no such thing as a living being without spirit, in which case God couldn't create such a universe.

Quote
Also, how does one determine that a universe with a god is ten trillion times better?
The real number is not computable, so I picked a small number to illustrate.

Quote
Miller accepts evolution.  For you to insist that Miller is a closet IDist is completely specious.
Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. So there!

Quote
(BTW, those "others here" that said one can believe in god and accept evolution...I'm one of them!  The fact that you imply that I'm arguing that one must be atheist to accept evolution, when I've specifically stated otherwise is completely intellectually dishonest.)
Of course I realize you are one of them - why do you think I implied you were not?

Quote
What's all this talk about "better"?  What makes us "better" than other primates?


Quote
You seem to have some sort of superiority complex over the other animals on this planet, and you want to impart that onto the science as if it is part of a scientific argument.


I guess I sort of wonder what to say to this. Certainly evolution papers and books talk pretty often about acquiring better and better adaptations. Like where Dawkins says that 5% of an eye is better than 6% of an eye. Is it better to have an IQ of 130 than 70? Sure, chimps have some better traits than we have, but the overall package is that we are an improvement and the point of the argument was all about the vastness of the improvements and the numbers of changes which have occured - also the writer promotes the idea of interventionism, that we humans were genetically modified by an outside race. I pasted it here just because it was a useful list of differences.

As for the value judgement, in my view, all things, every grain of sand or twig, is a perfect manifestation of God and are doing exactly what they should be doing. I don't even think of one person as better than another. I don't think Mother Theresa is better than Stalin. She isn't. I think that God is the animating spirit and universal consciousness in all living beings, and possibly even in inanimate things. Therefore, the animals are each unique and valuable expressions of consciousness.
At the same time, I find it a sort of pretense, and it is probably born of desperation to halt the mindless and uncaring desecration of the planet and rotten treatment of animals when people say that we are no better than animals or animals and people have the same rights.

Animals have the right to our respect and protection.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,04:53   

Chris,

Quote
I do not see any positive scientific evidence for design, is their anything specific that you see as good evidence?
By positive evidence, do you mean that you don't want what might be considered negative evidence, such as problems with the theory?

You say there are other flagella with parts missing. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying they are simpler or use other designs than the one Behe has popularized?

I'm not sure what you mean about assembling the parts in their current form - how do you suppose a system like the flagellum could have evolved? An inability to assemble them gradually is exactly what Behe claims.

Re us and chimps - does no one find the chromosome fusing odd? Is it usual for chromosomes to successfully fuse?

That the differences between us and chimps are caused by quite small differences in DNA is interesting - nonetheless we still have 30 or 35 million base pair adjustments, plus a chromosome fusion to account for.

GCT,

Quote

The books you've read that convinced you that evolution isn't true, were written by people who convinced themselves evolution isn't true because their god said so.  Their god told them evolution was bunk, so they went out and figured out how they could make convincing arguments that evolution is bunk.  Nevermind the fact that they formed their conclusion then looked for data....


Well that is an assumption that first of all calls some of them liars, altho they could be self-deluded, and it also suggests that those on the evolution side could be equally motivated by inner desires to find a certain type of worldview vindicated. And it denies any possibility that they could be persuaded by evidence or facts, so what you're really saying is that 'we are right because we are right.'

Henry,

Quote
But, how would a person know what the differences are, (God or no-God universe) unless that person had seen at least one universe of each type?
Well, I think I answered this in the post above. I am talking about global, foundational differences, not little details.

Quote
An evolving gene pool can try various things that are within its "reach", and it can "remember" previous results. Those are two of the properties we associate with intelligence. So even if intelligence is required, why would that form of it be insufficient?
Well that really is the crux of it. Is it sufficient? It is a stretch to call the above intelligence.

Quote

Scientific evidence consists of consistent repeatable patterns in observations, such that those patterns logically follow from the premise (or hypothesis) being tested.
Well, yes, but remember the phlogiston, remember the epicycles. It's tricky.

Jay Ray,

Good post. In fact, I do realize that there have to be some of your sticky laws going on, and even though I have been entertained by some of the arguments about chances of proteins getting together, I have long wondered or supposed what unknown forces might help coherent patterns to form.

I hardly need to do your deck shuffling experiment, since what you say is obviously true. The question is, though, how much can we extrapolate from the way that subatomic particles congregate, and atoms and molecules congregate, to the formation of the inner workings of the cells, the many millions of life forms, the fact that a cell has billions of highly organized and complex atoms which perform a dazzling array of functions? We are talking about complex information here. I'm not sure the two correlate, even though I suspect in many ways you are on the right track so far as the organizational patterns in the universe.

Even if we grant that the organization of life isn't quite as outrageous as proposed by some creationists, nonetheless  we have not a few but millions upon million of these amazingly varied and successful life forms. And there are things that nature unaided cannot do. We do them all the time. We write novels or compose symphonies. Why, when faced with the greatest complexity and unlikely mass of organization should we ridicule the notion that it might have taken an intelligence to accomplish?  

It seems to me there could be two kinds of organization. One would be helped by sticky laws that we don't know about. Perhaps they would help a membrane to form. But other designs are free of the necessity to have formed themselves in this or that way by any sort of law. And then the origin of life itself seems to actually go against what laws we do know about.

Also, while you say your sticky laws might make life even inevitable, such arguments to me seem like good ones for those theists who think that God was able to frontload the whole universe even as far back as the big bang for just that. In other words, even if you are right, it is pretty dam-ned fishy how it has all worked out.

As for creationists refusing to acknowledge sticky laws, first, we haven't really found them yet (but we might). But while it is fashionable to tar creationists with the same brush as ID, many or most ID people do not adhere to the restrictive and in my opinion shallow and immature thoughts of creationists. Some ID people like perhaps Mike Gene of telic thoughts are essentially theists or even deists. They are very interested in a front-loaded universe and would be searching for ways this could come about.

Russell,

Quote

Sure, you could probably get a computer simulation to do it effortlessly, but then, of course, the IDers will say, "all bets are off, because the computer was the result of intelligent design."
I don't think so. This is something a computer program could easily accomplish and has almost no relation to a computer program that tries to simulate actual evolution. I think the variables in actual evolution are so complex that we cannot create a computer program to simulate it.

questzal,
Quote

The same thing applies to the argument about life. Even if you could positively establish that life on earth was exceedingly unlikely, it doesn't prove anything unless you assume that life is a desired outcome.But of course, if you assume life is desired in advance, then you're assuming God in advance.

I don't see how this follows. You seem to be saying that, yes, the chances of life occurring are indeed one divided by many trillions, but it was just the way the random shuffle happened to fall. Nonetheless, there is something noteworthy about the fact that we have a planet teeming with millions of life forms when the chances of that were vanishingly small. I don't think we need to extrapolate further about having specified it in advance. Now, you can say that each and every shuffle of the deck is also very unlikely. But we can also say that they all do nothing different from one another, nor would a random shuffling of pebbles and shells on the beach. No matter how many times the waves toss them about, and no matter that each one is unlikely if specified in advance, they also do not stand out one from another in any discernable way. But that one shuffle - life, does.

What would you think if you walked down to the beach and the waves formed words out of the shells, either in one wave or over a succession of 60 or so waves - "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" ?

Now, you will say oh, but I have specified that in advance. And someone else later down in the posts has said that after all, there is not only one solution to proteins or perhaps even to life. But I will accept any sufficiently complex sentence in any language or alphabet on earth. So you see how many good solutions I will accept!

I'll accept even things other than words. A small house with windows and doors would do, or a code that can be decoded as a blueprint for building that house.

Now, I realize that there is a flaw in what I just said, to whit...

Puck,

Quote
but one point would remain the same.....and this is what avocationist and others seem to miss.  No matter how you shuffled, and how you taped the cards together.  The odds of having the cards in the final order are exactly the same.
It's the second time you've said this. I do realize that each shuffle is equally unlikely, and that it is our preference for high cards and certain suits which makes a certain hand specified as desirable. And I am quite sure Dembski realizes that as well. What YOU don't seem to understand is that each of those many deals don't accomplish anything and don't have any structured meaning. You can randomly shuffle letters forever and not get a novel by chance. Your argument implies that all shuffles are really equally valuable.

The flaw in my argument is that one does not necessarily have to get an entire shuffle right in one throw. But even if I acknowledge that there may be sticky laws, and of course the Great Law - what works gets preserved - there are too many improbable miracles in evolution theory, and there are too many systems that seem highly unlikely to congregate without intelligent design behind them somewhere.

Can any of you see that the possibility of the existence of an eternal being is
1) A reasonable assumption given the mystery of the existence of anything at all without cause
2) That such a being might accomplish things just as we do

and that given the possible existence of a prior intelligence it might seem actually more rational and less miraculous to suppose that this being organized the universe than to rely upon an endless succession of unlikely winners at the lottery of chance?

Why should we be the first or the only intelligence?

Henry,

Quote
Also that nobody knows how many of those 52 factoral sequences would still produce a highly diverse ecosystem, even if not identical to the one we've got.
Well, given the universe that we occupy, books like Nature's Destiny are narrowing the options on that.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,07:49   

Re "And, I think, popular evolution theory can also be accused of waxing philosophical."

Some scientists give philosophical opinions, yes. The theory itself doesn't.

Re " Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. "

I don't think so.

Re "I think the variables in actual evolution are so complex that we cannot create a computer program to simulate it."

Yeah, any computer simulation is going to have to leave out a huge amount of detail, so there is a risk of this messing up a conclusion.

Henry

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,08:06   

Avo-

You are so close to "getting it", but you just need to take the final step.

Science cannot believe in the supernatural, for a very simple reason.  Science is based on observing the natural world.  Supernatural "things" do not occur in a natural world.....this means that if angels really exist, and they are observable in some way....then they are natural

Lets go back to Miller, Behe, and Dawkins:
Miller and Behe both believe that God could be involved in our world....
Miller, however, doesnt care.  Why doesnt he care?
Because Miller is only interested in the best possible explanation of observations.  Miller will readily admit to you that the earth might only be 6000 years old, and that the evidence is all misleading.  Miller is not searching for the "truth", he is searching for the best explanation of the evidence.
Behe is searching for the truth.  He "knows" that there is a God, and so he believes he must find the evidence that points towards God.

I know that you think that all theists are IDists.....but your totally wrong.

An IDist doesnt believe that God interfered.  An IDist believes that there is definative evidence that God interferes.
Miller is not an IDist because he doesnt believe that there is any evidence.
I am not an IDist because I dont believe that there is any definitive evidence
Many people on this forum are theists but not IDists.

The reason that more than 50% of the population support intelligent design...is because they fail to see this difference.  I personally believe that this confusion comes from the common fundamentalist Christian position of faith=knowledge.
You can have as much faith as you want in something.....you will never have knowledge because of faith.

So....you can believe all that you want that the intricate nature of this reality is evidence of a designer.  You can point to the incredible complexity of life and the overwhelming odds of it being created.  You can look at all of that and say..."There must be a God".  That is perfectly alright.  No one on this site will fault you for that belief
An IDist says...the only possible conclusion that you can make based on the evidence is that a God exists...and that he interferes is a fact...that cannot be denied.  God is a scientific fact.  Now, if you hold this position we will argue with you at great length.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,08:21   

Quote
Re "I think the variables in actual evolution are so complex that we cannot create a computer program to simulate it."

Yeah, any computer simulation is going to have to leave out a huge amount of detail, so there is a risk of this messing up a conclusion.


But this is the point of computer simulation, and their strength. Computing power simply allows the experimental method to benefit from a new "control space." It's no different in principle from a 'nuts and bolts' experimental design, where variables are as tightly controlled as possibe.

The point of experimentation is to limit the variables to try and draw limited conclusions from idealized conditions.

The map is not the territory, and no scientist, whether performing physical experiments or computer simulations, thinks that it is. But, a good map allows us to reliably navigate the territory.

Avo:
Quote
there are too many improbable miracles in evolution theory, and there are too many systems that seem highly unlikely to congregate without intelligent design behind them somewhere.

Can any of you see that the possibility of the existence of an eternal being is
1) A reasonable assumption given the mystery of the existence of anything at all without cause
2) That such a being might accomplish things just as we do

I credit you, as have others, for being reasonable, and, especially, civil. But I feel like we haven't made any progress. The above is just more assertion based on incredulity. And science just doesn't engage in "reasonable assumption[s]" based on "mystery."

Once you start positing miracles, empirical inquiry breaks down. If nothing else out of this thread, I would like you to understand that.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,15:44   

Avo,

Thanks for the lengthy reply.  I think its great that you have an abiding interest in communicating on this blog.  As do the rest of us, as evidenced by the length of our own repsonses.  Thus my opening for, uh, ahem, a lengthy reply. :)

Quote
I have long wondered or supposed what unknown forces might help coherent patterns to form.


I wonder too, all the time.  I think you recognize that we humans have identified at least some of the big ones.  Could there be more forces, more subtle, that we are as yet unaware of?  Probably.  Its fun to think about.  The *cue narrational reverb* grrrrreat unknowwwwwn, and its complement discovery, are two of the most compelling concepts that lead people toward science.  

At the risk of being pedantic, it strikes me that that *all* patterns are coherent.  Coherency is perhaps the single defining characteristic of patterns, for without coherency it's just noise.  There would be no pattern there.  I grant that this property "coherency" may often be subtle and difficult to detect, but whenever you notice coherency, you notice a pattern and vice versa.  So I am curious, do you think there are patterns that are not coherent?  I think that an incoherent pattern is just one that hasn't been perceived yet.  Once we do notice the pattern, well, then its coherent.  Anyway, I digress...

Quote
...how much can we extrapolate from the way that subatomic particles congregate, and atoms and molecules congregate, to the formation of the inner workings of the cells, the many millions of life forms, the fact that a cell has billions of highly organized and complex atoms which perform a dazzling array of functions? We are talking about complex information here. I'm not sure the two correlate, even though I suspect in many ways you are on the right track so far as the organizational patterns in the universe.


We can extrapolate quite a bit.  And to be sure, we find that a high volume of our extrapolations (especially in the form of predictions or retrodictions) have been amply confirmed by experiment and observation.  This is quite the opposite of any ID supposition I've ever seen; they make no verifiable statements.  ID seems intent on maintaining mystery, rather than explaining it.  To a naturalist or a deist, complexity seems to be a natural outgrowth of the sticky laws + randomness + time + the universe.  I gather we disagree on this rather fundamental point?  One thing we might agree upon is that whether or not the universe and its laws as a whole came into existance via an undiscovered utterly natural process, or if it was poofed into existance by god, once the ball is rolling complexity will arise.  

The important question that arises out of this is, if one assumes god got the ball rolling initially, does god meddle?  I, for one, do not make that assumption.  For those that do, I'd say that their opinions about a god that "tweaks" or not, a) implicitly places limitations on god whatever way they make the distinction, and b) presumes that any mere human can know anything procedural or methodological about god at all.  Dangerous turf, if you ask me.

Quote
Even if we grant that the organization of life isn't quite as outrageous as proposed by some creationists, nonetheless  we have not a few but millions upon million of these amazingly varied and successful life forms.


Here again I find that I would expect exactly the diversity we do find, given the sticky laws + randomness + time + the universe.  I think this is one of the most basic differences between IDers and naturalists.  

The naturalist understands the thing in terms of process.  While there may be lots of points in our deep history where things could have gone differently, nevertheless here we are today--concious, self aware, curious and questioning and fascinated.  That I exist at all makes life all the more precious.  As a kind of cheap illustration of this sensation, nobody thinks twice about a coin that falls except maybe to pick it up and put it back in the pocket.  But if the coin falls and lands on edge--that's us, mind you-- then suddenly we're impressed, in a good way.   A naturalist feels that way all the time.  At least I do.

To contrast, the IDer doesn't look at the process, only at the result.  All the ID conclusions stem from here, the result.  The IDer I believe, feels uncomfortable in a universe where so much depends on flips of the coin.  Or to put it another way, since an assumption of god is there from the start, the IDer gets great comfort out of the feeling that the universe, and especially human existance, is intentional and that god really, I mean really cares about us.  I predict that you'll never see any procedural description coming out of the ID proponents--such considerations are antithetical to the beginning assumptions.  This is one of the reasons that it isn't science.

And there are things that nature unaided cannot do. We do them all the time. We write novels or compose symphonies. Why, when faced with the greatest complexity and unlikely mass of organization should we ridicule the notion that it might have taken an intelligence to accomplish?

Interesting point, and one which I don't intend to dwell on for long, lest I fill twelve pages.  I'd like to briefly profess my opinion that nature just does what it does, and when we say it "cannot" do something, we are saying more about our own tendencies than anything true about nature itself.  Any "rearrangements" we may make of nature's ordinary course are purely for our convenience, so we like to think, and in no way should this be considered a reflection of the inadequacies of nature to do anything at all except to conform to our desire.  If there was ever evidence of intelligent design, surely its when humans go poking their collective finger into the planetary pies.

Secondly, I find nature has a music all of her own that rivals any symphony composed in human history.  Don't get me wrong here, I love good music, novels, art in general.  Good art moves me, what more can I say?  When I look at nature, I see the process as the symphony, the fugue and the poetry.  Nature is music.

Quote
It seems to me there could be two kinds of organization. One would be helped by sticky laws that we don't know about. Perhaps they would help a membrane to form. But other designs are free of the necessity to have formed themselves in this or that way by any sort of law. And then the origin of life itself seems to actually go against what laws we do know about.


I'm not sure what you mean here, except for the last line, which I will tend to disagree with.  I'm not sure how the origin of life runs contrary to any known laws.  

Quote
Also, while you say your sticky laws might make life even inevitable, such arguments to me seem like good ones for those theists who think that God was able to frontload the whole universe even as far back as the big bang for just that. In other words, even if you are right, it is pretty dam-ned fishy how it has all worked out.


Heh.  Well, to tell you the truth, I have no big dispute with someone who wants to shrug their shoulders and posit frontloading.  I think frontloading as a concept is as unprovable as god, so if someone wants to believe it, well, I'm probably not going to tell them they are wrong.  Its unprovable either way.  But if you accept frontloading, then again you have to ask yourself, does god continue to meddle?  Why would god need to?  And why assume we can know anything about it either way?

Quote
As for creationists refusing to acknowledge sticky laws, first, we haven't really found them yet (but we might).


Wait.  I thought you agreed that gravitation and electromagnetism--at least--were instances of sticky laws.  


Quote
But while it is fashionable to tar creationists with the same brush as ID, many or most ID people do not adhere to the restrictive and in my opinion shallow and immature thoughts of creationists.


True-ish.  ID is a more subtle concept until you parse it out, where it labors under the same limitations as standard YEC.  But that subtlety attracts a wider audience, thus we are having this conversation here today.  Which is to say that its an interesting conversation.  I find most philosophical conversations appealing.  


Quote
Some ID people like perhaps Mike Gene of telic thoughts are essentially theists or even deists. They are very interested in a front-loaded universe and would be searching for ways this could come about.


They can keep searching until sun goes woosh, but they will find nothing hard and true, because the universe is a process and that isn't what they are looking for.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,05:29   

My compliments to all the most recent participants here. Excellent last batch of comments all-round.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,22:55   

I just noticed this:

Quote
Can any of you see that the possibility of the existence of an eternal being is
1) A reasonable assumption given the mystery of the existence of anything at all without cause
2) That such a being might accomplish things just as we do


Anythings possible, I guess.  I'm not so sure about reasonable.  If we're to say that a concious, intelligent eternal being can exist, we have to acknowledge that this being was itself uncaused. But if we're to be open to the possibility that this concious, intelligent being can exist without a cause, why not skip a step and give the universe itself the same possibility?

We simply don't know for sure what caused our universe to happen.  Down past the plank time, stuff is just unknowable.  My best guess is that some physical process is responsible; I put nothing past quantum weirdness.  

Of course, we quickly get into a chain of being type argument that ends up back where we started.  What came before the big bang, and what caused that?  And what before that?

That old joke:

A boy asks his father, "what does the earth rest on, dad?"

The earth is being carried on the back of a giant turtle, son.

The boy then asks, "But dad, what does that turtle rest on?"

Well, it stands on the back of an even bigger turtle, son.  Dad knows what is coming next.

The boy naturally asks, "What about THAT turtle?"

Dad throws up his hands.  Its no good, son!  Its turtles all the way down.


I remember pondering eternity, both time and space, at the age of four, maybe five.  I quickly became accustomed to the the idea.  At the time I hadn't heard of galaxies, so I had this picture in my mind of the edge of our universe, where the stars ran out.  But instead of just trailing off, there was this sort of hard boundary, like the whole thing was inside a box. What was on the other side of the wall?  Was the wall itself forever thick, or was there another universe on the other side?  And if there was another universe, what was on the other side of ITS walls?  Turtles all the way.  Forever never scared me.  I enjoyed thinking about it.  To this day, thinking about eternity puts me in a trance.  The earth is gone, its just me and the dark sky amid a field of stars. I feel at home.

But then I have this friend.  She's creative, cheerful, intelligent, very progressive.  Eternity scares the crap out of her.  A major preconception of mine was dismantled when we had this talk.  She said that when she thinks about eternity, her brain kind of switches gears involuntarily and tries to start thinking about something else.  It had never really occured to me that eternity could have a negative effect on someone, especially creative types.  

I'm not sure yet what to make of this.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,07:37   

Henry,


Quote
Re " Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. "

I don't think so.


I'm not sayiung there is really no difference. I am just pointing out that once you postulate any sort of God at all, the deck is stacked. There is an obvious correlation between:

There is a God  ===== the world evolved.

Puck,

Quote

Science cannot believe in the supernatural, for a very simple reason.  Science is based on observing the natural world.  Supernatural "things" do not occur in a natural world.....this means that if angels really exist, and they are observable in some way....then they are natural.
The question here is about observation. I think that what we observe is skewed or narrowed by our perceptive abilities. Perhaps even narrowed by attitudes of mind. If angels exist, what if we cannot observe them, or cannot usually observe them? Or haven't figured out how to observe them? I don't accept your division of natural and supernatural. Perhaps "observable and not observable by current means" would be more useful. That we have learned to observe many things that were once not observable should give us great pause.
Supposing that the origin of life required intentional intervention, as I think it probably did. I still can't think of that as a miracle. It seems events qualify as miraculous if they are more rare and discontinuous?
I have a problem with the statement that science "cannot" believe in the supernatural. If they take that stance they are as locked in as the religious side. Apparently you consider God supernatural. And you believe God initiated this world, do you not? And you suppose that this is forever undetectable? But that whatever event or events he caused, were indeed supernatural?

Quote

I know that you think that all theists are IDists.....but your totally wrong.

An IDist doesnt believe that God interfered.  An IDist believes that there is definative evidence that God interferes.
Alright, that is a fair point, one which I believe I have already tried to refute. I do not think it is even possible to have a world that is the result of an intelligent plan but which is also not detectable as such, because to say that is to say that randomness and chaos are perfectly capable of producing the very same things that intelligence and planning can produce. Which renders intelligence meaningless and impotent. And we see that human intelligence and planning are anything but meaningless and impotent.

Anyway, you are saying the difference is that Miller doesn't think there is evidence - nonetheless he thinks the world both received and required fundamental planning and interference. In this sense he is most certainly an IDist, not in the sense of fitting some definition in people's minds, but in the actual facts themselves. Miller believes this world is the result of intelligent planning.

Quote
The reason that more than 50% of the population support intelligent design...is because they fail to see this difference.  I personally believe that this confusion comes from the common fundamentalist Christian position of faith=knowledge.
You can have as much faith as you want in something.....you will never have knowledge because of faith.
I'm not sure you're right that they fail to see the difference. I think most people do think that there is evidence, if only in a 'common sense' kind of way. I mean, really, Dawkins has said in his book/s that (paraphrasing) evolution explains the undesigned emergence of features which appear designed. And remember, he does not believe God so much as initiated matter. So what is wrong with a person saying, "If it looks designed, it probably was designed?" Especially if they intuit that there probably is a God?

I'm surprised you say there is a christian idea that faith equals knowledge. I rather find an over-adulation of faith at the expense of knowledge. Recently on UD a commentator said that faith cannot be destroyed by scientific knowledge. But this is a rather dangerous approach. I don't say that faith should be easily destroyed by the first scientific factoid that appears to disagree with it. But if your faith means believing every word of the Bible is true, then the sun goes around the earth. And the original Koran is in heaven and written in Arabic, mistakes and all.
I think what you meant is that they accept faith as a substitute for knowledge. Or that they allow spiritual faith, which should lead to spiritual knowledge, to instead inform their scientific opinions too strongly.

Quote
An IDist says...the only possible conclusion that you can make based on the evidence is that a God exists...and that he interferes is a fact...that cannot be denied.  God is a scientific fact.  Now, if you hold this position we will argue with you at great length.
It occurs to me that it is a good thing that scientific culture takes a skeptical stance. Because it helps to cut out the excess of junk. False ideas are a huge impediment, and religion, in my opinion is full of them. Buddhism, the most rational and psychologically sophisticated religion, shows this very well. I'd go so far as to say it is better to be an agnostic or atheist than to hold rigidly to an insular belief system that is false.

Nonetheless, I think God may end up as a fact and it would be a good thing. But if "he" does, no doubt he will fail to conform to our preconceptions.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,07:57   

Avocationist, I'll try to explain.

Quote
You seem to be saying that, yes, the chances of life occurring are indeed one divided by many trillions, but it was just the way the random shuffle happened to fall. Nonetheless, there is something noteworthy about the fact that we have a planet teeming with millions of life forms when the chances of that were vanishingly small. I don't think we need to extrapolate further about having specified it in advance. Now, you can say that each and every shuffle of the deck is also very unlikely. But we can also say that they all do nothing different from one another, nor would a random shuffling of pebbles and shells on the beach. No matter how many times the waves toss them about, and no matter that each one is unlikely if specified in advance, they also do not stand out one from another in any discernable way. But that one shuffle - life, does.


No.

1. We have no idea of the chances of life occurring. We know of one universe. We know there's life in our tiny, tiny, remote corner of it. That's all we know. We can't even say whether life is likely anywhere else in this universe, much less how unlikely the universe itself is.

2. Even if we knew that life was a very unlikely outcome, that tells us nothing about God. How do we know that life is a special outcome, and not just one outcome at random? We don't.

Of course, it's special to us. But that's not relevant to this discussion. You're assuming life is special to God. That God created life because that's what he wanted. And you may be right. The existence of life is consistent with that belief, but it isn't evidence for it.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:25   

CJ,

Me:
Quote
there are too many improbable miracles in evolution theory, and there are too many systems that seem highly unlikely to congregate without intelligent design behind them somewhere.

Can any of you see that the possibility of the existence of an eternal being is
1) A reasonable assumption given the mystery of the existence of anything at all without cause
2) That such a being might accomplish things just as we do

You:
Quote
I credit you, as have others, for being reasonable, and, especially, civil. But I feel like we haven't made any progress. The above is just more assertion based on incredulity. And science just doesn't engage in "reasonable assumption[s]" based on "mystery."

Once you start positing miracles, empirical inquiry breaks down. If nothing else out of this thread, I would like you to understand that.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word mystery. The existence of anything at all is a great, unexplained phenomenon. I don't know what to do with your assertion of incredulity. This is a bizarre and mind-numbing idea put forth as a control and shaming technique.

Must science be willing to accept any explanation so long as it avoids anything but mindless and unguided processes?

You see, you seem to be saying that if there is a God that his actions were miraculous. Yet if that is the case, what are we to do? Ignore it?

Why in the world should empirical inquiry break down if God, for example, started life?
This is where Darwists are in danger of behaving like Christians. You can't insist on the philosophical assumption that there is no design, or that design is undetectable.

I should clarify that I do not think of God as creating nature and then subverting its laws or poofing things into existence. I think nature was created and then God worked within it to bring to fruition the possibilities it contained.

Jay Ray,

Quote
So I am curious, do you think there are patterns that are not coherent?
No, it was just a typical, thoughtless redundancy, like "very unique." I guess I meant "highly coherent".

Quote
To a naturalist or a deist, complexity seems to be a natural outgrowth of the sticky laws + randomness + time + the universe.  I gather we disagree on this rather fundamental point?
Yeah, I'd say so.

Quote
One thing we might agree upon is that whether or not the universe and its laws as a whole came into existance via an undiscovered utterly natural process, or if it was poofed into existance by god, once the ball is rolling complexity will arise.
It must be so, because that is what happened. (With a lot of help from yin and yang.)

Quote
The important question that arises out of this is, if one assumes god got the ball rolling initially, does god meddle?
You know, I live on the buckle of the Bible belt, and so at times I make remarks at work that alerts somebody's antennae. I was asked, "Don't you believe in God?" And I just stopped - I didn't know how to answer. I certainly can't say no but a yes answer confirms that I believe in their puny God. I think I just said, "not in the way you think." You might as well ask if I believe in breathing.

In the same way, the question "does God meddle," doesn't really compute, because God is all there is, or ever can be. There is no outside to God. I don't think that the reason God is difficult to discern is because he deliberately hid himself or preferred people to have blind faith, but because God is everything. Where is the contrast? So it isn't a question of meddling, but it is a question of how and by what processes this whole drama has unfolded and continues to unfold.

You may have heard, if you like philosophy, that it isn't so much important to get the right answers, but to know the right questions. I used to be a person who asked similar questions, but now those questions contain assumptions that I can no longer understand.

What with God being everything, it is hard for me to conceive of a personal God, and so this is an area that puzzles me. A personal God with preferences is a limited being, not an infinite one. It may be that God is only capable of a focused will or intent when He/she is expressed through a mind of some sort that is less then the Totality.

I have serious doubt that frontloading at the big bang can have included the tendency to form something like DNA and the cell. It looks to me like there are designs in biology of the meddling sort. That may be a product of lesser minds than what I would call God, or the Absolute, or Atman, who may not engage in that sort of activity. In my opinion, christianity gives that role to the Logos.

Quote
I, for one, do not make that assumption.  For those that do, I'd say that their opinions about a god that "tweaks" or not, a) implicitly places limitations on god whatever way they make the distinction, and b) presumes that any mere human can know anything procedural or methodological about god at all.  Dangerous turf, if you ask me.
Why do you say that it places limitations on God? This seems a popular idea.

What's this about "mere human?"  Why dangerous? anyway, ID doesn't necessarily say they can know anything about procedure or method, just the bare fact of design. As to whether we can know about method, that remains to be seen. But you criticize ID for wanting to maintain mystery, and then you say we can never know about procedure or method.

Quote
Here again I find that I would expect exactly the diversity we do find, given the sticky laws + randomness + time + the universe.  I think this is one of the most basic differences between IDers and naturalists.
It is easy to say, "Why that is exactly what I would expect!"

It is exactly what you'd expect if you already accept a set of ideas which are unproven and presume a lot.

Quote
To contrast, the IDer doesn't look at the process, only at the result.
Hmmm, well that certainly is true of a YEC. I find YECism really boring. What is interesting about a magical God with a big magic wand who waves it over the planet making millions of species in a day? Pure magic!

Quote
The IDer I believe, feels uncomfortable in a universe where so much depends on flips of the coin.
I don't know if I am uncomfortable, but it just doesn't appear that much was left to chance. But neither do I see God as an outside agency tinkering, deciding to make the blueprint for a beaver or a badger down to the last detail. Rather, I think that God is unfolding within and as the universe, and is also probably transcendent in some way that I don't understand.

Quote
the IDer gets great comfort out of the feeling that the universe, and especially human existance, is intentional and that god really, I mean really cares about us.
I do think that something like humans is intentional and required for completion. The question, does God care about us, is another nonquestion because there is no need to ask it. Like karma, it takes care of itself. We are not separate from and cut off from, God. As they say in the east, that which was never born cannot die. We are part of that and are therefore unvulnerable, altho we don't know it. And God's love is universal and impersonal.

Quote
I predict that you'll never see any procedural description coming out of the ID proponents--such considerations are antithetical to the beginning assumptions.  This is one of the reasons that it isn't science.
I don't agree with that at all. It could happen any time.

Quote
I'd like to briefly profess my opinion that nature just does what it does,
sure, but what is nature, then? Might it contain more than meets the eye? And when a person says that nature just does what it does, then you have no real right to argue with ID, because you have stood back and assessed the situation from a distance. ID is about looking up close. You are satisfied and find it adequate to say, "Nature just does what it does." That is hardly different than saying, "God did it, so we can't study it."

Quote
and when we say it "cannot" do something, we are saying more about our own tendencies than anything true about nature itself.
What? What are yousaying? I mentioned some very specific types of things that humans do with their intelligence that of course nature cannot do, such as write novels or build cars.

Quote
Any "rearrangements" we may make of nature's ordinary course are purely for our convenience, so we like to think, and in no way should this be considered a reflection of the inadequacies of nature to do anything at all except to conform to our desire.
I think you are finding it an attack upon the value of nature to say that it cannot do the things humans do. Sure, and humans cannot do what nature does. This is not a value judgement, just a difference in qualities. Humans are produced by nature, and we have fantastic minds capable of amazing feats. We can give nature the glory for it, if you like, but the point is, that  human focused intelligence accomplishes things which would not happen without intelligent input.

Quote
Secondly, I find nature has a music all of her own that rivals any symphony composed in human history.  Don't get me wrong here, I love good music, novels, art in general.  Good art moves me, what more can I say?  When I look at nature, I see the process as the symphony, the fugue and the poetry.  Nature is music.
That may be literally true. There is a whole thread of thought which says that vibration, of which sound is an aspect, is the main method by which existence becomes manifest. It seems compatible with string theory.

Quote
I'm not sure how the origin of life runs contrary to any known laws.
In trying to come up with scenarios for a cell to form, mostly a long list of problems presents itself. Of course life itself doesn't go against the laws of nature, but what I mean is that the chance formation of DNA, proteins, the cell membrane and that sort of thing has not been accounted for, and has run up against many dead ends. Life appears to be discontinuous with nonlife.

Quote
But if you accept frontloading, then again you have to ask yourself, does god continue to meddle?  Why would god need to?
Yes, those are the questions. I  tend to favor some idea that there is intelligence residing within, perhaps in the DNA, guiding it. It appears like a learn as you go project, yet not a mindless one.

 
Quote
And why assume we can know anything about it either way?
Well, I think we are in the dark ages now much as we were 500 years ago. Relativelyspeaking. It was reasonable to suppose that maggots spontaneously arose from rotten meat. It looked that way, it was consistent, and the micro-world didn't exist.  If we don't destroy our civilization, in time we will understand very much more about embryonic and other genetic and epigenetic processes, and then, I think, we will have a clearer idea about whether random mutation has the creative power currently attributed to it.

How do you see ID as laboring under the same limitations as YEC?

Quote
They can keep searching until sun goes woosh, but they will find nothing hard and true, because the universe is a process and that isn't what they are looking for.
But frontloading IS a kind of process. Isn't drawing up a blueprint, getting parts delivered, and building a house, making a few adjustments as you go, and putting in the finishing decorations a process?

Quote
If we're to say that a concious, intelligent eternal being can exist, we have to acknowledge that this being was itself uncaused.
Right, otherwise, what use is he?

Quote
But if we're to be open to the possibility that this concious, intelligent being can exist without a cause, why not skip a step and give the universe itself the same possibility?
Because, if by universe, you mean only dead matter, then it is simply impossible to suppose that it caused itself, nor can dead matter itself have the property of self-existence, uncaused existence.

But if you think of the universe as a seamless whole, with mind or an uncaused principle at its core, then it could be as you say.

Quote
Down past the plank time, stuff is just unknowable.  My best guess is that some physical process is responsible; I put nothing past quantum weirdness.
There is no planck time or quantum weirdness without existence. Exsitence is primary.

Quote
What came before the big bang, and what caused that?  And what before that?
The big bang, if it even happened, is not that important because obviously it had a cause.

Quote
I remember pondering eternity, both time and space, at the age of four, maybe five. To this day, thinking about eternity puts me in a trance.
Good. Add to those two, existence. Eternity, infinity, and existence - all not able to fit in with our usual linear mode of thought and experience, all unavoidably necessary yet almost impossible for our minds to grasp.

Quote
It had never really occured to me that eternity could have a negative effect on someone, especially creative types.
The difference is one of fear. It scares her. It scares her because it feels like annihilation. Her ego/mind is attempting to protect itself by switching gears.

Quote
To this day, thinking about eternity puts me in a trance.  The earth is gone, its just me and the dark sky amid a field of stars. I feel at home.
I think that is very close to our true situation - almost all of what we think of as reality is a comfort zone to protect us from the true state of affairs - each of us is alone in a vast empty black without a compass. Sunlight and other people is what keeps our sanity. I'm fond of solipsism.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:30   

Oh, I missed this:

Quote
And if there was another universe, what was on the other side of ITS walls?


I don't accept the idea of multiple universes. If there are such, then the one whole is what I would call the universe. Universe, by definition, means ONE.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:31   

Quote
By positive evidence, do you mean that you don't want what might be considered negative evidence, such as problems with the theory?
I mean evidence that actually points to an intelligence as opposed to just pointing out supposed problems with evolution.

Quote
You say there are other flagella with parts missing. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying they are simpler or use other designs than the one Behe has popularized?

I'm not sure what you mean about assembling the parts in their current form - how do you suppose a system like the flagellum could have evolved? An inability to assemble them gradually is exactly what Behe claims.


Behes point as far as I can see is that if you removed a protein from the Ecoli flagellum it would cease to function, I have no problem accepting this. It does not follow however that the system could not have evolved by addition of parts. Say the part that we remove, part A, causes the flagellum to cease functioning and we suspect that it was the last part to be added, and is attached to parts B and C. Saying that this means that part A couldn't have been added by evolution assumes that the structure of parts B and C were the same as they are now when part A was added (and the structure of part A was the same for that matter). Maybe there is some evidence I haven't seen that proves this assumption, in which case I'd be grateful if you'd point me to it.

Quote
Re us and chimps - does no one find the chromosome fusing odd? Is it usual for chromosomes to successfully fuse?
Usual enough for us not to find it odd, we see it in plants quite often i think.

Quote
That the differences between us and chimps are caused by quite small differences in DNA is interesting - nonetheless we still have 30 or 35 million base pair adjustments, plus a chromosome fusion to account for.
Some of them are, for example the difference in brain sizes is caused mainly by differential expression of certain hormones during development(at least thats the most likely explination), which requires relatively few mutations in promoter regions and transcription factors. The point is that every single advance, be it the comparison of a new genome or some new advance in evodevo answers more questions regarding evolution and solidifies the theory. ID proponents for some reason like to say that these advances only help to show how the species barrier is becoming more and more of an obstacle for evolution, whereas every paper I read on the subject shows the exact opposite.

Quote
and it also suggests that those on the evolution side could be equally motivated by inner desires to find a certain type of worldview vindicated. And it denies any possibility that they could be persuaded by evidence or facts, so what you're really saying is that 'we are right because we are right.'
I can never really understand this point, atheists don't belive in god because they see no evidence of a god, not because they would rather there wasn't. If I saw evidence there was a god, then I'd say 'you know what I was wrong', and then I'd pay my friend the money I bet him whe I was 9(I see myself more of an apatheist, although that probably wouldn't stop me going to ####). This is not the opposite of christianity, the disproof of the existence of god would have a lot more effect for christians, so I don't think you can say scientists are just trying to protect the atheist worldview.

Quote
I have a problem with the statement that science "cannot" believe in the supernatural.
Do you have a problem with the statement 'Science cannot believe in the supernatural as there is currently no way to distinguish a phenomenon as supernatural'?

Quote
I do not think it is even possible to have a world that is the result of an intelligent plan but which is also not detectable as such
Richard Dawkins completely agrees with you.

Quote
because to say that is to say that randomness and chaos are perfectly capable of producing the very same things that intelligence and planning can produce. Which renders intelligence meaningless and impotent.
What do you mean by the very same things? At the moment we know of no intelligence that can produce what we see in the natural world, and there are many things we have created that the natural world could not. In the future it is possible that we will be able to create improved versions of everything in the natural world. Im really not sure why anything we observe in this universe renders intellegence meaningless.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,18:51   

Jay Ray,

Quote
No, it was just a typical, thoughtless redundancy, like "very unique." I guess I meant "highly coherent".


I thought so.  Sorry about the diversion. :D

Quote
One thing we might agree upon is that...once the ball is rolling complexity will arise.

It must be so, because that is what happened. (With a lot of help from yin and yang.)


This is a good place to start from then.  Maybe we can come back to it sometime.

Quote
In the same way, the question "does God meddle," doesn't really compute, because God is all there is, or ever can be. There is no outside to God. I don't think that the reason God is difficult to discern is because he deliberately hid himself or preferred people to have blind faith, but because God is everything. Where is the contrast? So it isn't a question of meddling, but it is a question of how and by what processes this whole drama has unfolded and continues to unfold.


I understand this.  And to some extent, I agree.  My take is exceedingly taoist.  Humans, like all of nature, are an expression of the whole thing.  I think we agree that whatever the universe is--whether it is an unintelligent process or guided--there is no way we can seperate ourselves from it.  I'm glad you clarified your postion, because I understand where you are coming from a little better.  Your take is a whole lot more sophisticated than Christian fundamentalism.

The whole point of the "meddling" question doesn't really apply to you, if I've learned the right things about your position.  Its mostly used to illuminate an inconsistancies in the typically fundamentalist doctrine.

Quote
You may have heard, if you like philosophy, that it isn't so much important to get the right answers, but to know the right questions.


Ideally, we'd aim for both.  Asking the right questions does no good if you draw the wrong conclusions.  This isn't an either/or.

Quote
A personal God with preferences is a limited being, not an infinite one. It may be that God is only capable of a focused will or intent when He/she is expressed through a mind of some sort that is less then the Totality.


I'm glad you've moved past that glaring stumbling block.


Quote
I have serious doubt that frontloading at the big bang can have included the tendency to form something like DNA and the cell.


Me too.  But then, nothing compels me to claim frontloading in the first place.  Maybe Dembski can teach you some things about the subject?  Its definately not my field.

Quote
It looks to me like there are designs in biology of the meddling sort. That may be a product of lesser minds than what I would call God, or the Absolute, or Atman, who may not engage in that sort of activity. In my opinion, christianity gives that role to the Logos.


Interesting.  So your thought is that somehow this eternal, concious being was incapable of directly tinkering with atoms and molecules and instead works through lesser intermediaries?  If I'm wrong, please correct me.  If I'm right, then I'd ask how the lesser intermediaries themselves came to be.

Quote
Why do you say that it places limitations on God? This seems a popular idea.
What's this about "mere human?"  Why dangerous?


Its a response to the inconsistant fundamentalism doctrine which among a host of other contradictory claims, says that god is omni-everything, who works in mysterious ways, is unknowable yet full of very human emotions, who is benevolent and full of the most perfect love and at the same time, venegeful and jealous and petty and cruel.  A god whose subjects are required to have faith without evidence, and who should also know him by his works.  Etc.  

Anyone who claims to know how a god like this is going to do something contradicts numerous "authoritative" statements about that god.  It gets old quickly.  But I'm now understanding that this doesn't apply to you, and I hope I won't have to bring this up with you anymore.

Quote
anyway, ID doesn't necessarily say they can know anything about procedure or method, just the bare fact of design.


Just because something resembles a design does not mean that it necessarily has been.  This is a major sticking point for a lot of people.

Quote
As to whether we can know about method, that remains to be seen. But you criticize ID for wanting to maintain mystery, and then you say we can never know about procedure or method.


Both are true, at least in the case of your average Behe or Dembski.  Your ID take is a different from theirs.  You should take a closer look at what they are saying, and what they are not.  It seems like you might have some weighty philosophical disagreements with them.

Quote
It is exactly what you'd expect if you already accept a set of ideas which are unproven and presume a lot.


Then you say something like this which puts you squarely back in the middle of the YEC arguments.  What unproven ideas?  What presumptions?

Quote
To contrast, the IDer doesn't look at the process, only at the result.
Hmmm, well that certainly is true of a YEC. I find YECism really boring. What is interesting about a magical God with a big magic wand who waves it over the planet making millions of species in a day? Pure magic!


:D  

Quote
I don't know if I am uncomfortable, but it just doesn't appear that much was left to chance. But neither do I see God as an outside agency tinkering, deciding to make the blueprint for a beaver or a badger down to the last detail. Rather, I think that God is unfolding within and as the universe, and is also probably transcendent in some way that I don't understand.


You probably aren't uncomfortable, and I take that as good.

Perhaps you can explain how you square statistical, probabilistic quantum mechanics with a being who leaves little to chance?  Why go through all the trouble to create this system which is almost entirely random, when in fact what you really wanted to do was have the universe be what it is today?  "Unfolding" implies that everything is going according to plan.  Why do the laws of physics sport this feature?  Newtonian mechanics would have worked better for this task.

Quote
I do think that something like humans is intentional and required for completion.


Completion?  Completion of what?  What goal does the god-verse have in mind, here?  Explain how you derive this.  

Quote
The question, does God care about us, is another nonquestion because there is no need to ask it. Like karma, it takes care of itself. We are not separate from and cut off from, God. As they say in the east, that which was never born cannot die. We are part of that and are therefore unvulnerable, altho we don't know it. And God's love is universal and impersonal.


I agree that its a non-question.  I agree we are part of it, and invulnerable from the overview.  But I'm not sure I follow the some of this.  What is love without care?  Where do you derive the conclusion that there is any emotion whatsoever felt by this eternal, concious, intelligent being?  

Quote
I don't agree with that at all. It [ID's description of process or method]could happen any time.


It won't come out of Behe or Dembski, that's for sure. It'll be someone with a more Eastern perspective.  Maybe you?  But if there is, the process described won't say a darn thing about the most important parts of ID, which are the designer or its intelligence.  Therefore it won't prove a thing.  It'll be a description of blind, self consistant, unintelligent process which naturalists have been pointing out for eons.  But hey, if you have some specific facts, please tell the Discovery Institute.  They could use some good news.


Quote
sure, but what is nature, then? Might it contain more than meets the eye?


Of course there is more than meets the eye.  I don't know of a single scientist that would claim otherwise. I certainly haven't.  To the contrary: anytime I reference the unknown, I'm referring to this very concept.  What I wont do is a priori replace it with "intelligence" or "plan" or "love" or anything at all.  Its just the unknown.

Quote
And when a person says that nature just does what it does, then you have no real right to argue with ID, because you have stood back and assessed the situation from a distance. ID is about looking up close.


Slow down.  What is your evidence that I assess only from a distance?  I object to that characterization, for I also assess from as close as I can get.  My position is not purely philosophical.  Perhaps this will become more clear if you notice that both in this thread, and in others, I base arguments and reference definate physical processes which support my claim that no intelligence is required to see what we see.  Perhaps More will come to light as our conversation trundles ahead.  

I'm not sure how ID being about "looking up close" in any way grants it superiority as a method of discovery. If we're going to stick to an ocular analogy, I'd say that on the one hand, ID is downright myopic.  They are squinting so hard they've lost sight of everything but what's real.  On the other, they have this feeling that there must be some kind of guiding hand in control of all this, so everything they look at is filtered through that lens.  "If it looks designed, it is designed!"

Wellll, wait a minute, bub, says I.  That's quite an extraordinary claim.  You're going to have to offer more evidence than a subjective impression to justify that statement.

Quote
You are satisfied and find it adequate to say, "Nature just does what it does." That is hardly different than saying, "God did it, so we can't study it." ...  What are yousaying? I mentioned some very specific types of things that humans do with their intelligence that of course nature cannot do, such as write novels or build cars.


You took that quote out of context, or you read something into it that was not intended.  The point was that when making statements about nature's "ability" are attributing human qualities where they are not justified.  Because although we'd like them to, that rivers don't flow uphill somehow suggests that nature is incomplete or insuffiecient in some way?  No.

It flows downhill because it must, by the laws of physics.  It does what it does because is has to.

Quote
I think you are finding it an attack upon the value of nature to say that it cannot do the things humans do. Sure, and humans cannot do what nature does. This is not a value judgement, just a difference in qualities. Humans are produced by nature, and we have fantastic minds capable of amazing feats. We can give nature the glory for it, if you like, but the point is, that  human focused intelligence accomplishes things which would not happen without intelligent input.


I'm finding it incorrect and unjustified to dress an unconcious nature in human clothes or feelings.  I'm a stickler that way.  I think its a dangerous tendency that we humans don't know when to leave well enough alone.  Ever read Kurt Vonnegut Jr?  In his book Galapagos, the narrator of the story is a cute widdle fuzzy-wuzzy from the distant, post-apocalyptic future.  The narrator is actually a descendant of those earlier humans, who now has a smaller brain than his distant ancestors.   The cute widdle fuzzy wuzzy claims that the problem with the older humans is that their brains were just a bit too big.  Big enough to get into trouble, but not big enough to get out of it.  So when they screwed up the planet, the few survivors had the adaptation of brains that didn't grow so big anymore.  Sounds about right to me.

Quote
Secondly, I find nature has a music all of her own ... Nature is music.

That may be literally true. There is a whole thread of thought which says that vibration, of which sound is an aspect, is the main method by which existence becomes manifest. It seems compatible with string theory.


Heh.  If there was ever justification for creationists to claim "well, its just a theory!", then I think  "string theory" has earned it.  Practicing scientists should object to attaching "theory" to the concept. Its a hypotheses, untested and at least so far, untestable.  Its very interesting and extremely suggestive work, but totally, completely, utterly undemonstrated at this point.  

Quite opposite from evolutionary theory...

Quote
In trying to come up with scenarios for a cell to form, mostly a long list of problems presents itself. Of course life itself doesn't go against the laws of nature, but what I mean is that the chance formation of DNA, proteins, the cell membrane and that sort of thing has not been accounted for, and has run up against many dead ends. Life appears to be discontinuous with nonlife.


Talk about your problems.  There are plenty of this board who have a deep knowledge of the biological sciences.  I even know some biology and physics myself.  I'm lousy at math, though.  In any case, step away from philosophy for awhile and maybe the science itself will give you some new ideas one way or another.  Its a win-win, as far as I can tell.  Plus, (here's a nudge in the ribs for you) this is your chance to put your money where your mouth is and "look close" like you think all good IDers do.

We'll all grant you that at least so far, we don't have a digital recording of how replicating molecules came to exist.  But we're looking, and I bet we come up with a plausible explanation.  The great unknown!  Our big brains have to look around the corner to see what's there.  

Quote
But if you accept frontloading, then again you have to ask yourself, does god continue to meddle?  Why would god need to?


Yes, those are the questions. I  tend to favor some idea that there is intelligence residing within, perhaps in the DNA, guiding it. It appears like a learn as you go project, yet not a mindless one.


This doesn't make sense to me.  I'm going to see if I can't sum up what I'm hearing from you.  Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll try not to get too snarky.

The god-verse has always existed.  The god-verse feels love, but doesn't care.  He has some plan, part of which involves the tiny speck called planet earth, and all the life on it, including humans.  The god-verse doesn't or can't act directly, so he acts through intermediaries.  He's a kind of supervisor, then.  The god-verse is trying to stick to the plan, but mistakes occur.  Maybe these mistakes aren't the god-verses mistakes.  Perhaps they are the mistakes of the intermediaries who act on his behalf.  Yet he (or they) learns from these mistakes, and so the plan, of which we are an intentional part, is unfolding constantly.  

I'm scratching my head here trying to understand this.  What is the plan?  Why can't GV work directly? What's the deal with the intermediaries?  What are they?  How were they created, or did they also always exist? Are they subservient to GV somehow?  How the heck did you figure all this out, anyway?  Oh, did I ask what the plan was?

It all sounds very Hindu to me.

Quote

Well, I think we are in the dark ages now much as we were 500 years ago. Relativelyspeaking. It was reasonable to suppose that maggots spontaneously arose from rotten meat. It looked that way, it was consistent, and the micro-world didn't exist.  If we don't destroy our civilization, in time we will understand very much more about embryonic and other genetic and epigenetic processes, and then, I think, we will have a clearer idea about whether random mutation has the creative power currently attributed to it.


I agree.  The picture will be clearer in the future.

Quote
How do you see ID as laboring under the same limitations as YEC?


Perhaps later.  I'm getting antsy.

Quote
But frontloading IS a kind of process. Isn't drawing up a blueprint, getting parts delivered, and building a house, making a few adjustments as you go, and putting in the finishing decorations a process?


My understanding of "frontloading" is a sort of magic wand, an imprinting of initial conditions.  The implication to me is that god wanted things to happen more or less a certain way, and with a wave of the wand (frontloading), set the universe in motion.    Everything after that is happening "just so", because of the frontloading.  But frontloading and actual building are two different things.  

Frontloading is often referred to by creationists when they talk about "the laws of the universe being just right for life".  Of course, they don't admit the anthropic bias.  So you never hear them say "its just right for MY life".  That's because IF the laws were a little different, OTHER life could have or would have occured, and that's not what god frontloaded things for.  No siree, god wanted ME.

I think it was Dembski who referred to frontloading when he suggested that the original biological cell contained DNA for every different kind of life on the planet that would come after.  Massive, massive frontloading.  As this original "supercell" multiplied, the various sections of DNA that form individual species broke off into daughter cells.  So gradually, Dembski's idea was that the supercell, just like a machine, contained all the instructions that would eventually lead to right here, right now, and of course, humans specifically were part of the plan.

What you describe is not what I think creationists mean by frontloading.  You're describing a busy infrastructure involving architects, engineers, construction workers, raw material gathers, etc.  Even one little person could decide he wants to build a log cabin, say, and then go about the process of doing so.  But that's not frontloading.  That's tweaking what nature would do by itself without intelligent interference.  Its an active, time reliant process.  It's a whole series of things, coming together over time to complete a function: forming ideas, drawing up plans, hacking and sawing, dragging and sweating, rearranging, binding and lashing and gluing and nailing, etc.


Quote
...we have to acknowledge that this being was itself uncaused.

Right, otherwise, what use is he?


Use?  I think this is about the plan again, right?  *waits for it*


Quote
Because, if by universe, you mean only dead matter, then it is simply impossible to suppose that it caused itself, nor can dead matter itself have the property of self-existence, uncaused existence.


So. Dead matter cannot be caused without direct intervention.  Life itself is a heckof a lot more complicated than dead matter.  And you're saying that neither life nor just plain stuff could happen uncaused.  

But this original intelligent, concious creator thing is obviously alive in every meaningful sense.  Its certainly more complicated than dead matter.  So by that logic, it could not exist either.  Its self-contradictory to assign life without a cause while simultaneously exluding it.

Quote
There is no planck time or quantum weirdness without existence. Exsitence is primary.


I'm with ya.

Quote
The big bang, if it even happened, is not that important because obviously it had a cause.


That it had a cause is likely.  Is that important?  I dunno. I think its fascinating... but important?  *shrug*  I guess I don't really know what that means.

Quote
I don't accept the idea of multiple universes. If there are such, then the one whole is what I would call the universe. Universe, by definition, means ONE.


I have no evidence for "other universes", and don't make the claim either way.  Anyway, its a matter of definition.  Semantics, really, and not that interesting of a distinction.

One last thing.  Do you or do you not agree that electromagnetism and gravity exist?  What about the nuclear force?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,05:40   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 10 2006,01:0)
No need to repeat the last post - I have completely lost track of the thread of the conversation and if you think I have twisted your words you need to show how. Not that I expect you to do that level of research at this point, - but I did not know to what you were referring.

If you are not twisting my words, why do you ascribe to me arguments that I explicitly didn't make and in fact said the opposite of?
Quote
Alright, I'm guilty. I found it a bit frustrating that when I say the universe with God is quite different than without, that you took it to mean that the laws of gravity or something would be different.

And yet you still can't tell us how it would or would not be different...more on that later.
Quote
There is no separation of philosophy from real life. What a bizarre thought. But of course, one can realize that one's philosophical opinions are more or less provisional. Which they are.

How is that bizarre? You can philosophize all you want about any number of god-like beings, but it doesn't make them real.
Quote
You give up too easily. There might be a temendous amount we don't know, but we can surely surmise that if there is no God there is also no soul, no reincarnation or afterlife, no conscious intention behind the universe, that matter is the primary reality and things like intelligence are emergent properties of matter. Whereas if there is a God then something which has the property of self-existence and something like a universal mind would be the causal to matter, and that therefore all things are really one thing at their origin, and that something other than dead matter is the source of our existence.

That's all very nice, but you still have no clue which situation we are currently living under, nor which one would truly be better if the situation were reversed. Further, how could we even tell if it were reversed? If I currently have a soul, it's completely undetectable. If god created the universe or not, we can't tell. So, how can you "know" that the universe is vastly different with or without god?
Quote
No, you need to explain to me why you think a person or people altering a shoreline would be detectable as design.

Because it IS design. That's the point. If Dembski can't discern that it is design, then what good is his design filter?
Quote
Like Mayr's book? I am trying to read it, but it is very simplistic and makes bold statements with little detail. It is going over stuff that I have already read refutations of. But maybe it will get better. My main reason for reading it is to better understand why you guys think the evidence is so good.

I think you need a simplistic book (no offense) because your understanding of evolution is frankly not that great. Don't forget that the "refutations" you have already read are a load of hooey that are based on religious arguments.
Quote
Remember, many of the mountains of evidence are data which are not in dispute, but the interpretation of that evidence, and certain extrapolations from that evidence are what is in dispute.

Ah, the old "I just interpret the empirical data to infer design" canard. The problem with that, however, is that in order to "infer" design, you must first assume a designer...oops, it just becomes a circular argument.
Quote
Neither should science presuppose no God, and despite what Puck and some others have said, this is quite often out there in the public domain. Judge Jones said that there is a centuries old agreement against the supposition of God, and that ID invokes and 'permits' the supernatural. How can the supernatural not be permitted, and why must we call God supernatural? An a priori assumption of God does not prevent a person from doing perfectly good science, even in the arena in which it might matter, so long as they are willing to be proved wrong.

And, unfortunately for you, not assuming 'god' is not the same as assuming 'not god.' Science must be completely agnostic on the issue, and evolution is, ID is NOT.

Also, I'll note that an a priori assumption doesn't preclude someone from doing good science, but it can't interfere with the science. Oh wait, I've already said this. Why must I repeat myself again and again just to have you repeat it back to me as if it's your argument?
Quote
I mean that a universe with a God is a different ballgame than one without. Whichever one we are in, it is the only possibility. If there is a God, it means that God caused existence and that matter could not have caused itself. If there is no God and matter is eternal, then God is an imaginary idea. I am not sure what you mean by couldn't God have made a different reality. I think that you mean couldn't he have made a different universe. I suppose he could but that is really a matter of detail - this type of story or that type of story. God IS the universe, whatever sort s/he morphs Itself into.

So what? Oh, there is a flaw in your argument. If there is a god, that does not preclude the ability for matter to have "caused" itself. God may be nothing more than an observer. Of course, you still can't prove that the universe would be different with or without god.
Quote
Given the elements that exist, they are all finely tuned and cannot be more finely tuned to produce life as we know it.

Where is your evidence?
Quote
Textbooks have stated, and the Weisel 38 have stated, that evolution theory proposes an unplanned and unguided process, and many or most evolutionists expect or hope that life itself was capable of self-assembly.

And you still don't understand what "random" means. Uplanned and unguided AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN DISCERN (note the emphasis, because you really need to get this through your head!<!--emo&;) Science can not tell about plans or intentions or gods, so as far as the limited practice of science can tell, we don't see a plan or guide. That doesn't mean that science is saying that there is no god. Also, note that no science talks about the planning and guiding from god, so we are back to you saying that all science is atheistic. We don't really have to go over that again, do we?
Quote
You asked this: This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through
science?

And I answered this: I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.

And then you replied: So, you didn't answer my question, but you felt compelled to go on some tangent? Nice. Is that an attempt at obfuscation, or what?
***********

Why not rephrase the question? You spend a lot of time accusing me of not answering or twisting words and I spend a lot of time wondering where we got lost. Perhaps if you included more than the final sentence in an exchange. If I don't answer right, clarify.

Fine, I will rephrase, although it was a very straightforward question. If you refuse or evade this question, I will have no choice but to accuse you of such.

How will you scientifically test for god?

Is that clear enough for you?
Quote
I have no idea where your question came from - I do hold out the hope that science will prove something about consciousness such that it will make materialism untenable. Or perhaps some other types of proofs will occur. As it stands now, no one can prove God to another. The best one person can do is to help another one to expand their thoughts so that he can discover it for himself.

Then go figure out how to do that and run some experiments. The fact that NO ONE has ever done that is pretty telling in this regard. But, one of the reasons I asked is because IDists think that they can empirically prove god. How will you do that?
Quote
As for who will be the discoverers of the limits of change through mutation, it doesn't matter. If IDists are in the minority, then it will likely not be them.

It's not because they are in the minority. It's because they don't actually do any scientific experiments!
Quote
Perhaps not, but at least the possibility is there, whereas if there is no God, the possibility is most likely not there.

So what? Really, I don't care if we have souls or not for the purposes of this discussion. How can you scientifically test for that or show that we have souls? You can't.
Quote
I think it is very likely that it is indeed impossible due to the nature of God and life that there is no such thing as a living being without spirit, in which case God couldn't create such a universe.

Anytime someone says "God couldn't" my stock answer is that you don't understand what omnipotence is (assuming you think god is omnipotent.)
Quote
The real number is not computable, so I picked a small number to illustrate.

Ten trillion is a small number to you?

Either way, you are right that the real number is not computable. I'm glad you agree with me on that. What you are incorrect about is whether that number must necessarily be above 1. There is no logical imperative for a god-full universe to be better than a god-less universe.
Quote
Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. So there!

Tell that to the Christian posters here who support evolution, see what they say.
Quote
Of course I realize you are one of them - why do you think I implied you were not?

Because you felt the need to specifically restate my position as your own in some effort to win a debate point against me, thereby implying that it was NOT my position.
Quote
I guess I sort of wonder what to say to this. Certainly evolution papers and books talk pretty often about acquiring better and better adaptations. Like where Dawkins says that 5% of an eye is better than 6% of an eye. Is it better to have an IQ of 130 than 70? Sure, chimps have some better traits than we have, but the overall package is that we are an improvement....

Only if one assumes that humans are some end result.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,19:02   

Chris,

Quote
I mean evidence that actually points to an intelligence as opposed to just pointing out supposed problems with evolution.
 How about CSI and IC?
Quote
It does not follow however that the system could not have evolved by addition of parts.
There are two ways. One is the slow evolution of a system such as 5% of an eye, 6% of an eye and so forth, while the organ is one of vision the whole time. The other path is cobbling different parts together so that they have first one function, then something completely else, then yet a third, and so on. I went into this in some detail in a previous post, with questions about how it could work, so maybe you didn't see it. I also know Behe considers it unlikely enough to dismiss as a serious possibility. The trouble I have is finding what I have read so I can cite it. I was also impressed with Mike Gene's essays on the flagellum about how the assembly occurs. Here's some points he makes to refute what he calls the EFM Hypothesis, which he defines:
Thus, we have a step-by-step account that involves at least three different functional states: protein export system transformed into nonmotile filament transformed into flagellum. Let us refer to this scenario as the Export-Filament-Motility (EFM) Hypothesis.:
Selective Motility?

Another aspect of this motility component of the EFM hypothesis worthy of a critical look is the assumption that some kind of primitive, proto-motility function would be selectively advantageous. While a crude Darwinian "common sense" would seem to indicate this, I am not so sure. To appreciate why, we need to ask why it is that modern day bacteria move in a series of straight runs and tumbles. Why don't they simply swim straight for a food source instead of taking a convoluted path involving short bursts of straight runs interspersed with tumbles that randomly reorient them? In fact, bacteria will only be propelled by their flagella spinning about 100-300 times/sec for about 3-4 seconds. Why?

We sometimes forget that the small-scale world of bacteria is much different from our macro-world. Bacteria are constantly being buffeted by water molecules and thus live in a "Brownian storm." The simple fact is that because bacteria are so small, they swim through a Brownian storm. Brownian motion will knock bacteria off course after 3-4 seconds. [4] And this highlights a serious problem with the EFM hypothesis. The flagellum is a highly sophisticated machine. Even if one believes it evolved, what we study today is the product of billions of years of evolutionary modification. Yet even this high sophisticated/highly evolved system barely overcomes the Brownian storm. Thus, just how advantageous would some proto-wiggle really be? Imagine a boat in the ocean during a tropical storm. Would a propeller that spun once every second really be any better than no propeller? In other words, it is possible that biologically significant motility on these scales depends on a minimal amount of system complexity and output that is out of reach in a Darwinian search beginning with simple states. To assure myself this was not the case, I did a PubMed search with the following search words: " partial motility flagella selective advantage" and it returned 0 hits. I obtained one hit with the search words partial motility selective advantage" and this was not a relevant study. Thus, this essential feature of the EFM hypothesis is without any evidential support.

***********
The space between the two membranes is called the periplasm. Transport via the Sec pathway dumps material into the periplasm. The trick for the bacteria is to grow this into a filament that penetrates the outer membrane in a coordinated manner. So how do cells make P pili?

First, you export all the pilus subunits into the periplasm using the sec-machinery. The proteins are threaded through the sec-machinery in an unfolded state and most refold in the periplasm. And therein lies the problem, as the pilus subunits easily form insoluble aggregates (or clumps) in the periplasm through hydrophobic interactions. To prevent this, we need to invoke another component, a special chaperone encoded by PapD. PapD does two things - it binds to the pilus subunits after they are pumped into the perisplasm and prevents them from clumping with each other and also helps the pilus subunits to fold into their proper conformation. In fact, the pilus subunits are not stable as monomers and exist either as bound to the chaperone or as bound to each other as part of the filament. The manner in which the chaperones carry out their function is far more elegant than anyone assumed, employing something that is now called "donor strand complementation" (DSC).

The 3-D structures of PapD complexed with PapG (the adhesin on the tip) and PapK (one of the adaptors) have been solved. PapD forms a boomerang-shaped protein with two immunoglobulin-like (Ig-like) domains (a structure composed of layers of antiparallel beta sheets). The N-terminal end of PapK is also an Ig-like domain, but it lacks a C-terminal beta sheet that normally contributes to the hydrophobic core of the domain. This produces a cleft that exposes the hydrophobic core, which is what makes it so sticky and prone to aggregation by itself. The chaperone PapD masks this exposed region in a most fascinating manner - it donates one of its beta strands to complete the Ig-domain in PapK (Fig 1). But it does so in an atypical fashion, as the beta strand it donates runs parallel, not antiparallel, with its neighboring strand. Thus, PapD provides at least two essential functions captured in one very elegant act - by donating one of its beta strands, PapD simultaneously prevents aggregation of PapK while providing the missing steric information for proper folding of PapK. And what this means is the folding of pilus subunits is IC. By themselves, the subunits don't fold properly and are unstable. The steric information for proper folding is not found in a single amino acid chain or gene, but in two distinct chains/genes. And By itself, PapD has no function. Clearly, the simplest known filament is far more sophisticated than the filament imagined by the EFM hypothesis (i.e., biology is not as simple as it assumes).
What happens next? The pilus subunit-chaperone complex interacts with a protein channel on the outer membrane, PapC (also known as the usher). The channel is large enough to accommodate the tip of the filament, but not the rod. The actual mechanism of incorporation is being worked out, as the chaperone somehow hands off the pilus subunit to the usher for incorporation into the growing filament. Interaction between the usher and chaperone-pilus subunit does not result in the chaperone-subunit complex breaking apart, thus the mechanism of handoff is also probably quite complicated and sophisticated.

But there is one more feature to the story worth mentioning. The pilus subunits themselves are thought to form a filament through a donor strand complementation-like mechanism. Each pilus subunit has an N-terminal extension that does not contribute to its own folding. By itself, it is a disordered strand. However, it has been proposed that this N-terminal extension from one subunit (let's call it A) displaces the displaces the donated chaperone strand associated with another pilus subunit (B). This N-terminal strand would then form a beta strand that runs in an antiparallel direction and complete the Ig-domain of its neighbor in a typical fashion.(Fig 2) Again, the steric information for the Ig-domain of subunit B is supplied from subunit A. This mechanism is called donor strand exchange. And the result is that the filament is made by linking subunits, where each subunit contributes a strand to perfectly complete the fold of its nearest neighbor.

Thus, it should be clear that some ad hoc notion of an export protein sticking to itself and sticking to the export apparatus to form a filament does not reflect the biology of the simplest known pilus. Life is much more sophisticated than this. Thus, all the examples of simple, nonmotile filaments in bacteria provide no obvious support for the EFM speculation.
*****************
As if having your supporting evidence shown to be irrelevant was not bad enough, there are more problems. For example, let's imagine that with enough luck, somehow a P-pilus-like materializes. After all, such pili are the most common. And therein lies the problem, because while the P-pilus makes a great attachment organelle, it's probably a dead-end if one wants to evolve a flagellum. For one reason, the P-pilus has not been observed to secrete proteins. This could be because the channel is so small . Or it might have something to do with the energetics of the system, as P pili formation is independent of cellular energy. It's not surprising that the P-pilus looks very different from the bacterial flagellum (or even things like type IV pili).

Finally, there is yet another fact that suggests flagella did not arise in the manner that the EFM proposes. Whether we're talking about simple type I pili or more complex type IV pili, what they all share in common is being built from the bottom-up. The flagellar filament, in stark contrast, is built from the top down. And the manner in which this done is yet another amazing story in microbiology. How amazing? Robert Macnab is an expert on the flagellum and has been working on them his whole life. As such, you might expect him to be used to the complexity and sophistication of the flagellum. Yet he reacted by noting that this mechanism is " a much more sophisticated process than any of us could have envisaged."[3] In fact, consider how this was reported:
"The latest technical discoveries in flagella fascinate biologists such as Robert Macnab, a professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University who also studies flagella. He marvels at how organisms as simple as bacteria have evolved such complex methods to develop propelling features, especially since motility in bacteria is not directly necessary for survival, like DNA replication or protein synthesis. "We think it would not be possible for the system to work with any significantly lower complexity." [4]

So let's have a look to see how well the EFM hypothesis' filament formation story anticipates the actual mechanism bacteria use to form filaments.

Flagellar Filament Formation

Shigella are nonmotile pathogens. Even though Shigella do not express flagella, they do possess the flagellar operons, suggesting this nonmotile state was recently acquired. Four strains were recently analyzed, showing that loss of flagella has occurred independently.[5] In two strains, the only thing missing was fliD, the gene that codes for the protein that caps the filament.

What happens if you don't have fliD is that no filament forms? As Ikeda et al. explain, "A fliD-deficient mutant becomes non-motile because it lacks flagellar filaments and leaks flagellin monomer out into the medium." [6] FliD is not merely a regulator or aid, but an essential component for filament formation. To understand why, let's consider the research results that fascinated Macnab and others.[7]

The fliD gene products form a five-member pentagon-shaped ring that caps the hollow filament formed by flagellin subunits. Each member of this pentamer has a leglike extension that points downward and interacts snuggly with the filament. However, there is a symmetry mismatch between the cap and the filament. The cap is formed from five protein subunits, but the helical end of the filament itself is formed from 5.5 flagellin subunits. Macnab explains the significance of this as follows: " When one protein of the cap pentamer is at the dislocation point (think of a split washer), it will be in a very different environment from the other four members of the pentamer." [3]

In other words, a significant crevice is associated with the cap and end of the filament. And it is proposed that the next flagellin subunit that gets added to the filament is added to this crevice. The addition of the new flagellin subunit is then coupled with the cap itself rotating along the filament axis to open up a new adjecent crevice. As Macnab suggested, think of the cap as a split washer (where the center is filled) sitting on the end of a hollow tube. Individual flagellin proteins travel down to the tube to be added at the tip. The flagellin then gets placed into the space of the split washer, the washer turns, and opens up a new space. Thus, you can envision the cap spinning around, inserting new flagellin monomers one-at-a-time. (Fig 3)

Fig 3 (adapted and modified from [7])

[The yellow blocks represent flagellin. Newly added flagellin molecules are shown in violet. As the cap turns, one of its legs exposes an empty slot (shown in the picture second from the left). This slot is the site for the next addition of flagellin. ]

Duane Salmon once estimated that the growth rate of the filament to be about 50 flagellin units/sec.[8] Since there are ca. 5 subunits per turn of the helical filament, this suggests that the fliD cap rotates about ten times every second as it incorporates about 50 flagellin subunits.

What's most relevant about this is that the C-terminal and N-terminal ends of flagellin subunits are unfolded as they travel down the hollow filament tube, as the folded protein has a significant kink in its middle that would prevent transport through the tube. As Macnab notes, "large conformational changes would be required in the monomers before they could be added to the filament tip." Thus, the fliD cap also does not simply provide a passive, mobile slot to insert flagellin subunits. It also helps flagellin fold. In other words, the cap is a chaperone. Thus, the flagellar filament is built in a way that is similar to P pili and quite different from HbS filaments; the flagellin units do not "self-assemble," they are assembled by a processive chaperone at a rather impressive rate.

Things get even more interesting when one considers that just below the cap, the filament cavity is expanded such that its cavity is about twice the size of the central channel that runs through the rest of the filament. It is suggested that this might be the site in which flagellin folds in a manner that is analogous to the folding that occurs in the GroEL chaperonin in the cytoplasm. The parallels are interesting. GroEL is capped by GroES to form a closed chamber, while FliD also functions as a cap to form a closed chamber. It is suggested the filament chamber can house one flagellin monomer at a time, which is exactly how GroEL works. Yet there are a couple of significant differences that probably stem from the fact that GroEL is a generic chaperone chamber that functions only to fold a diverse set of proteins, while the chamber at the distal end of the filament folds and incorporates only one protein, flagellin. The first difference is that GroEL requires energy in the form of ATP hydrolysis that alters the volume of the chaperonin. It is intriguing to speculate that the folding chamber at the end of the filament also undergoes cycles of volume changes associated with the rotation of the cap and insertion of a new flagellin filament. In such a case, the energy could be derived from the winding coupled to favorable protein-protein interactions associated with assembling flagellin subunits into the filament. Secondly, the filament chamber would cycle much faster that GroEL. The typical GroEL cycle lasts 15 sec. The filament, on the other hand, is incorporating 50 subunits/sec. That's folding individual monomers every 0.02 seconds, which is 750 times faster than GroEL.

There are several clues that point to design here.

1. Flagellin/fliD and GroEL/GroES are not homologous. Yet if the flagellin/fliD chamber functions as I suggest, we have another system whose sophisticated mechanism is related in a logical fashion (another example would be in the similar proofreading mechanisms of DNA replication and attaching amino acids to tRNA).

2. FliD and flagellin form an IC relationship. FliD has no other basic cellular function apart from forming the filament. Flagellin too has no other basic cellular function apart from forming the filament. And both are needed to form the filament.

3. As suggested, there seems to be only enough room for one flagellin monomer to fit into the chamber and fold. If this is essential, we have another IC-like interaction. Flagellin must be first unfolded to transport through the channel. But it must also be folded again to be incorporated into the filament. If this second folding event depends on the distal chamber, then two independent events must be carefully coordinated to construct the filament.

And there is one more interesting twist on all of this. There is suggestive evidence that the hook-associated proteins, those that attach the filament to the basal body and the fliD cap itself, may be chaperoned through donor-strand complementation. Specifically, there are two chaperone proteins that specifically interact with the C-terminal ends of the hook-associated proteins and cap and prevent their premature aggregation. Thus, just as there is a mini-IC relationship with flagellin and the cap, the cap and hook proteins may also share an IC relationship with their specific chaperones. Again, we would see the basic conceptual strategy in protein folding and assembly as seen independently in the P pilus. And the "self-assembly" is highly regulated - a chaperone helps assemble the hook, another chaperone helps assemble the cap, and the cap assembles the filament. In other words, and here is the interesting point, we will soon begin to make a strong argument that assembly of the flagellum itself is IC.
To sum this section up, let's consider more problems inherent in the EFM hypothesis

   * The EFM hypothesis is divorced from biological reality, as the formation of the simplest filaments (the p pili) is far more involved (at its core) than a protein simply sticking to itself.
   * The EFM points to other filaments that employ bottom-up construction to explain the top-down construction of the bacterial filament.
   * It is not clear that a transport system, by itself, is "preadapted to form a filament."
   * Even if it is true that secretion systems are preadapted to form a filament, such "preadaptation" may very well steer a forming structure away from the fitness peak associated with a flagellum-like structure. For example, the most common filaments do not transport proteins, probably because they are too small and lack sufficient energy sources: "Thus, the chaperone/usher system might not be able to adapt for secretion of soluble proteins." And there is no reason, according to the EFM hypothesis, that the filament must be hollow. One might claim there are lots of uses for nonmotile filaments currently in use by living bacteria. Yet how many have gone on to become rotary propulsion units?
   * The bacterial filament itself, along with its assembly process, is IC. It is fundamentally more sophisticated and complex than anything foreshadowed by the EFM hypothesis, indicating again that this hypothesis is divorced from biological reality.  

I know it's long but it's pretty interesting and I just took out a couple small parts. And this is what I mean about ID looking up close, Jay Ray.

Quote
Usual enough for us not to find it odd, we see it in plants quite often i think.
Only plants? I'm wondering how it would work. I would think that for two creatures to sucessfully mate they would need to have the same number of chromosomes. Wouldn't it have to happen in one generation, to go from 48 to 46 chromosomes, and wouldn't there have to be several siblings get this mutation perhaps from the same mother, so that they could mate and continue the new species? Or wouldn't it have to occur in the mother and father together?

Quote
ID proponents for some reason like to say that these advances only help to show how the species barrier is becoming more and more of an obstacle for evolution, whereas every paper I read on the subject shows the exact opposite.

Well, that is certainly interesting.

Quote
Quote
and it also suggests that those on the evolution side could be equally motivated by inner desires to find a certain type of worldview vindicated. And it denies any possibility that they could be persuaded by evidence or facts, so what you're really saying is that 'we are right because we are right.'

You: I can never really understand this point, atheists don't belive in god because they see no evidence of a god, not because they would rather there wasn't. If I saw evidence there was a god, then I'd say 'you know what I was wrong', and then I'd pay my friend the money I bet him when I was 9 (I see myself more of an apatheist, although that probably wouldn't stop me going to ####). This is not the opposite of christianity, the disproof of the existence of god would have a lot more effect for christians, so I don't think you can say scientists are just trying to protect the atheist worldview.


The point is that people have inner motivations to protect a worldview or just to be right, or not to derail a career, and it is not at all confined to situations where the stakes appear to be high. Just recently on UD I saw someone make the opposite point, that most religious scientists  feel that their faith is not vulnerable to scientific inquiry (except perhaps YEC types, which are surely a minority) whereas evidence of design would be very upsetting for an atheist or materialist.

Quote
Do you have a problem with the statement 'Science cannot believe in the supernatural as there is currently no way to distinguish a phenomenon as supernatural'?
I tend not to think in terms of supernatural. Was the origin of the universe supernatural? Perhaps yes, in the sense that nature is within nature, and only something outside nature can cause it. The laws of nature are not the cause of the laws of nature.

Quote

because to say that is to say that randomness and chaos are perfectly capable of producing the very same things that intelligence and planning can produce. Which renders intelligence meaningless and impotent.
**********
What do you mean by the very same things? At the moment we know of no intelligence that can produce what we see in the natural world, and there are many things we have created that the natural world could not. In the future it is possible that we will be able to create improved versions of everything in the natural world. Im really not sure why anything we observe in this universe renders intellegence meaningless.

Alright, this is pretty close to GCT's questions also.
We live in a universe. This universe may or may not have God. If there is a God then this God is the source of existence, because that really is what the definition of God entails. And not just a verbal definition.  The great question of causation is solved if there is an eternal and nonlinear being that is beyond notions of existence or nonexistence.

If there is a God then the way things have turned out for planets and life cannot be unconnected in some way to this God. And if there is a god then existence and the laws of nature come from this God so that random and unguided processes would not be adequate to produce our world. So by rendering intelligence meaningless, I mean the statement that even though there is a God, it looks like a universe might look if there wasn't one.
I'm not saying that the universe cannot appear material and nonspiritual to some people. I'm saying only one or the other is true and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, it means that not-god was never an option. Likewise, if there's no god, then such a notion is total fantasy, quite unnecessary, and impossible.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2006,21:00   

Jay Ray
Quote
My take is exceedingly taoist.
Oh, good.

Quote
Asking the right questions does no good if you draw the wrong conclusions.
Sure, what I meant was that as understanding progresses, so do the questions. some questions aren't so much answered as disappear.
Quote

Interesting.  So your thought is that somehow this eternal, concious being was incapable of directly tinkering with atoms and molecules and instead works through lesser intermediaries?  If I'm wrong, please correct me.  If I'm right, then I'd ask how the lesser intermediaries themselves came to be.
From Tao te Ching, I like #42 the best. If the Tao is so infinite that it cannot even be called one, how is it to make plans? The Tao is the void of Buddhism. To become one, requires some self-consciousness. Now you have two. The duality of two and nonduality make three. Anyway, I'd like to see a good explanation of that passage. From a great power station, you need stepdown units to get structured work done. In the Christian trinity, you have the Source, the Uncreated Energies, and the Organizing Force, which is supposed to be the real creator of this world.
I like my names better, don't you?
Quote
Etc.
Jehovah is a misanthropic doody head. And an imposter. I don't care who hears me say it.
Quote
Just because something resembles a design does not mean that it necessarily has been.  This is a major sticking point for a lot of people.
There's more analysis than that. I hope you'll look through my previous post to Chris; I excerpted some of the better and more interesting parts of a very detailed set of 5 essays on the evolution of the flagellum.

Oh, and just because it looks designed doesn't mean it wasn't, either.
Quote
Your ID take is a different from theirs.  You should take a closer look at what they are saying, and what they are not.  It seems like you might have some weighty philosophical disagreements with them.
Well, they are Christians. Are you saying that they think method is off-limits?
Quote
It is exactly what you'd expect if you already accept a set of ideas which are unproven and presume a lot.

Then you say something like this which puts you squarely back in the middle of the YEC arguments.  What unproven ideas?  What presumptions?
Plenty of people have and have had trouble with Darwin's theory without being YECs! I could go through my books, and I should, to present some of them, or perhaps I can just look around and lift some things from the net. But I can't do it now, cause I spent so much time already.
Quote

Perhaps you can explain how you square statistical, probabilistic quantum mechanics with a being who leaves little to chance?  Why go through all the trouble to create this system which is almost entirely random, when in fact what you really wanted to do was have the universe be what it is today?
I really didn't mean to quantify how much was left to chance as I don't know. I can't form an opinion about the quantum reality as I don't understand it very well and I think some false claims have been made about particles arising without cause. And philosopically, the question of freedom versus determinism is a very difficult one. I suspect both operate but I can't begin to defend that. And how does the randomness of quantum particles affect evolution theory?
Quote
"Unfolding" implies that everything is going according to plan.  Why do the laws of physics sport this feature?  Newtonian mechanics would have worked better for this task.
Well no, I don't define the unfolding too tightly. A general plan, yes. The laws of quantum physics, I suspect, work the way they do because reality requires it. Sub-planck length reality, I think, is already another dimension. My little thought. Has anyone else thought about this?
Quote
Completion?  Completion of what?  What goal does the god-verse have in mind, here?  Explain how you derive this.  
Because, by golly, it would be a sad place without our intelligence to understand and admire it all. We may not be the end-product, either. But we're getting close. In my opinion, it's all about consciousness, so far as any goal type of thing.
Quote
What is love without care?  Where do you derive the conclusion that there is any emotion whatsoever felt by this eternal, concious, intelligent being?
Not sure where the love without care came from. Because I said the love was impersonal? It's the best, the only kind! That which we call love, it is conditional. Easily lost. Easily withdrawn. It has requirements. I don't say that the infinite feels an emotion. I'm saying that a life force and love energy are just the state of its being. It's not a passionate love, it supports all things without distinction.
Quote
It'll be someone with a more Eastern perspective. (propose a method for ID) Maybe you?  
Why thanks, but I am not a scientist and i cannot do it. Anyway, the banned JAD at least gave it a shot.
Quote
Of course there is more than meets the eye.  I don't know of a single scientist that would claim otherwise.
But what I was specifically alluding to was that pure material reductionism is an inadequate explanation of the cosmos.
Quote

Slow down.  What is your evidence that I assess only from a distance?
Well, I mentioned complexity, and you answer that nature just does what it does. That sounds like not wanting to look to close, being easily satisfied with surface explanations.
The feeling you speak of, that IDists have, is intuition.

You seemed to think that I was disparaging nature because it doesn't compose symphonies (it does, through us) and I explained that I was not and you even posted my explanation, yet still seem to think I was.
The passivity of matter is its perfection.

OK, string hypothesis it is. I like it. I root for it.

Abiogenesis is not the place to start. Abiogenesis really hasn't got off the ground. Better to stick to problems with homology and the fossil record and that sort of thing.

The god-verse is not a supervisor, because if he was, he could also act directly. The Tao JUST IS.
I suppose my views might be somewhat Hindu. Mostly from hinduism I take advaita. But they do have some notions of advanced states of being in which there is only a very subtle separation left between them and God. Everyone and everything has always existed, in one form or another. I don't know why I should know how they were created but they ought to exist. It doesn't make sense to have such a gap between our type of being and god.

I guess frontloading could either be a very general one of creating the universe, laws of nature and elements so that a few planets would probably evolve life forms, or it could be more specific.
A book like Nature's Destiny doesn't think it is probable that other forms of life could have evolved. Many different elements conspire to form the best system, which substitues could not fill. Not that the humans would have to be just like us, but more or less.
I wasn't really meaning to compare frontloading to building a house. You had said something about frontloading not being the kind of process that this universe really is. I think a process can unfold according to a general plan without being boring.

Quote
Right, otherwise, what use is he?

Use?  I think this is about the plan again, right?
No, not the plan. I mean, if we are to have a god-being, she certainly should possess the property of uncaused existence, or its not much of a god.
Quote
And you're saying that neither life nor just plain stuff could happen uncaused.
That's right.
Quote

But this original intelligent, concious creator thing is obviously alive in every meaningful sense.  Its certainly more complicated than dead matter.  So by that logic, it could not exist either.
It isn't complicated.
Quote
One last thing.  Do you or do you not agree that electromagnetism and gravity exist?  What about the nuclear force?
Oh, yeah, I missed that. Of course they exist. I wasn't sure what i said to bring that on...we were discussing sticky laws, and we agreed there might be more we don't know about to add to the ones we have.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,01:06   

I am not an expert on the flagellum, I have no idea how it may have evolved, and i have not read Nick Matzke's essay, so I couldn't really respond to a critique of it. One point though is that I was at a conference last year where several people who are experts demonstrated that partial motility is better than no motility at all, so Im going to have to take their word for it.

My problems regarding IC are mainly based on other examples of protein complex evolution that I am more familiar with, and in these cases one method of evolution is as I said before: the acestral model is without part A, but the structures of parts B and C are different so that they system does function, it almost certainly functions much less efficiency, and may not even perfrom the same function. The affinity for A binding to B and C is probably very low at this point, however over time it will get higher as this will increase the efficiency of the system, and this process will likely be caused by mutations in A B and C. Eventually B and C will mutate to the point where they can no longer function without A, hence the system will no longer function if A is removed.

This is just one method of course, and may not apply to the flagellum i don't know, but there are many more similar routes. But the point is that IC says in principle if you remove a part and the system ceases to function, then that part could have not been added by evolution, and this is not true.

Quote
Only plants? I'm wondering how it would work. I would think that for two creatures to sucessfully mate they would need to have the same number of chromosomes. Wouldn't it have to happen in one generation, to go from 48 to 46 chromosomes, and wouldn't there have to be several siblings get this mutation perhaps from the same mother, so that they could mate and continue the new species? Or wouldn't it have to occur in the mother and father together?
Not only in plants, its just been more studied in plants because it happens more often, you'd be suprised how different chromosome structure can be an hybridization is still possible, see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/life_will_find_a_way.php for an example. It is very possible for example, that human and chimp DNA could hybridize, but even if it could, the difference in gene expression during development would kill any embryo, and as I mentioned it is this that likely causes the major difference between us and chimps, and is probably a major method of evolution across species barriers.

Quote
How about CSI and IC?
CSI and IC simply say that there is a low probability of systems evolving by certain routes. I have already pointed out what i think problems with IC are. CSI in my opinion in its current form is completely unapplicable to biological systems due to a number of factors, including its definition of complexity, specification and information, and the current impossibility of calculating the probability that the flagellum evolved naturaly. In any case, it has not been proven to work on anything other than anecdotal examples. Im not sure how anyone can say they are positive proof of ID, as opposed to arguments from ignorance.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,01:18   

:02-->
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 14 2006,01:02)
Alright, this is pretty close to GCT's questions also.
We live in a universe. This universe may or may not have God. If there is a God then this God is the source of existence, because that really is what the definition of God entails. And not just a verbal definition. The great question of causation is solved if there is an eternal and nonlinear being that is beyond notions of existence or nonexistence.

If there is a God then the way things have turned out for planets and life cannot be unconnected in some way to this God. And if there is a god then existence and the laws of nature come from this God so that random and unguided processes would not be adequate to produce our world. So by rendering intelligence meaningless, I mean the statement that even though there is a God, it looks like a universe might look if there wasn't one.
I'm not saying that the universe cannot appear material and nonspiritual to some people. I'm saying only one or the other is true and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, it means that not-god was never an option. Likewise, if there's no god, then such a notion is total fantasy, quite unnecessary, and impossible.

You lack imagination. If there is a god, there is no logical imperative that this god is anything more than an observer. We could still have arisen through chance or "not-god" processes. There is no logical imperative that this god be about love. There is no logical imperative that we have souls. There is no logical imperative that god "caused" our universe or us or anything else. That isn't to say that god isn't the 'cause' of all of this and we don't have souls, but there being a god does not necessarily entail that we do.

What is this "great question of causation?"

Now, simply because there is a mutually exclusive set of god or not god does not mean that the universe would be significantly different with or without god. It is simply your perception of it that you think would be severly changed, yet the funny part about that is that it might not be changed at all. You seem to think there is a god, but perhaps there isn't one. Considering that we can't know, you still think there is one, and the universe hasn't changed, nor has your perception.

So, the real question is, how will you scientifically determine that there is a god? ID says that it can be done. How? Evolution (and all real science) say that that question is off the table unless we can figure out a way of actually testing for god or not god. Since we can't actually do that, then we can't say whether things were "planned" or not. THAT is why we say things like, "Evolution is unplanned and unguided." We say that because we have the implicit idea that it is unplanned and unguided AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN DISCERN. Once you get that thought through your head, you should see why ID is not science.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,05:16   

Quote
(GCT: ) Why must I repeat myself again and again just to have you repeat it back to me as if it's your argument?
Because she's totally committed to the creationist viewpoint. If you've heard of "Morton's Demon", you'll know what I'm talking about.

Case in point: quoting - well, no - cutting and pasting pages of "MikeGene", chock-a-block full of technical details about bacterial flagella, none of which does anything to advance the case that really, really complex = "irreducibly" complex. She dismisses Ernst Mayr (! ) as "simplistic", but takes "MikeGene" as the last word on flagellum research. Why? Is "MikeGene" an expert in the field? Does "MikeGene" do research in this area? Who is "MikeGene"? The only thing I know about "him" is that "he", too, sees the world through Design colored glasses. Yet, at the same time, she admits to a lack of understanding of very basic, easy to look up, genetics (the chromosome fusion business.)

I wouldn't get too worked up about it. She's never going to "get it". Any evidence or logic you present will be dismissed as just "one side of the argument".

Go ahead and argue with her, if you like. (Heck, I like solving Sudoku puzzles; hardly a more productive use of time! ) But you might find this more entertaining.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,07:18   

Ha ha ha.  Thanks for the site Russell.  That's one of my favorite Python sketches of all time.

I'm seriously evaluating whether it is worth my time to engage Avo anymore.  It's amazing how I can come up with an argument that refutes her position, only to have her spit it back to me later on as if it is her argument and somehow strengthens her position.  It's mind-boggling.  Of course, I also like to solve Sudoku puzzles, so maybe I do just like wasting time.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,12:23   

Avocationist

I don't know whether you got around to reading Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale", but I highly recommend another book which my daughter pased on to me to read, just recently. It is "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World" by Francis Wheen. It does put some current issues into a broader perspective. Anyone who needs an antidote to the po-mo nonsense of Plantinga will enjoy it.

This is not a shill, Francis is only a distant relative  :)

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,15:30   

Avo, I'm qouting you:"No, it doesn't seem preposterous at all. What seems preposterous is that a creature could have 7% of a wing,"

What about 6 percent of a simian tail?  Some humans do develop these at birth, and all of us carry the bones for a vestigial tail.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2006,16:52   

A question here - in what way would 7% of a wing differ from simply an arm? ;)

Henry

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:01   

If we're talking about Mcnuggets, there's a heap o' difference, Henry J.  Otherwise, none.
   By the way, there was an interesting newsie tidbit on 20/20 (or one of the shows like it) on the possible causes of homosexuality.  As I recall, they mentioned hormonal influences, and possibly the effect of antibodies the mother develops to male children.  It seem that the chances of having a gay son increases based on the number of older brothers he  has.  I wonder (out loud, with no intent to derail this well meaning but clearly hopeless thread) how the creationists and IDist respond to these findings.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:06   

I have two older brothers.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:37   

Well Sactum, do you like gladiator movies? ;)
Oddly enough, The number of older brothers means nothing if the lad is left handed.  Odd.
http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_050812_3.asp

A quote from the above site: "So, a male with three older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than one with no older brothers, though there's still a better than 90 percent chance he will be straight. They argue that this results from a complex interaction involving hormones, antigens, and the mother's immune system."

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,15:32   

Quote

My take is exceedingly taoist.
Oh, good.


Note, any relation to Taoism in my approach to life is reality based, not mystical.  Some of those Taoists "back in the day" took a wrong turn, I understand.  No, my view is more world-as-integrated, self organized system, and not necessarily self aware or "thinking" in any sense of the word.



Quote
If the Tao is so infinite that it cannot even be called one, how is it to make plans? The Tao is the void of Buddhism. To become one, requires some self-consciousness. Now you have two. The duality of two and nonduality make three. Anyway, I'd like to see a good explanation of that passage. From a great power station, you need stepdown units to get structured work done. In the Christian trinity, you have the Source, the Uncreated Energies, and the Organizing Force, which is supposed to be the real creator of this world.
I like my names better, don't you?


Its been awhile since I've browsed the Tao Te Ching.  I'll have to look into this before I make any meaningful comment.  My reading of the Tao Te Ching always took notions of intention as allegorical and anthropomorphic, if not outright bad translation.  I will say, without looking, that if Lao Tzu's early, pre-scientific intuitions about the workings of nature were mostly pretty good, I think he crosses the line by attributing self-conciousness.  


Quote
Jehovah is a misanthropic doody head. And an imposter. I don't care who hears me say it.


:D

Quote
There's more analysis than that. I hope you'll look through my previous post to Chris; I excerpted some of the better and more interesting parts of a very detailed set of 5 essays on the evolution of the flagellum.

Oh, and just because it looks designed doesn't mean it wasn't, either.


Behe on the stand in Dover, repeated this phrase like a mantra:  "The purposeful arrangement of parts..."  All the rest is just an elaboration of this phrase.  Over and over we hear from IDers that, "The laws of physics are suspiciously well-suited to support life.  Given all the possibilities, it's unlikely to happen that way by chance.  Ergo, design."  The purposeful arrangment of the universe.  On smaller scales, that same perception is given equal attention.  I know the ID camp likes to look close.  Some also like to peel back and conceptualize the universe as a whole.  At any scale, the IDer perceives that probabilty can't account for the object under scrutiny, thus that "the purposeful arrangement of parts" is the only conclusion.  So the point isn't so much one of focus, but of perception.  Like my creative friend, the thought of being alone in the vast universe and ultimately responsible for ourselves scares most of them.  So whenever they perceive something, its through a lens of a (supposedly wiser) external guidance.  I say the ID perception is clouded by emotion.

Quote
Well, they are Christians. Are you saying that they think method is off-limits?


Yes.  But not only Christians.  No IDer has laid out an explanatory sequence of steps which shows a design event, and it never will.  They can't.  ID only points and says "it looks designed, so it must be."   They never say how this supposed design was turned into mechanism, an actual thing that we can observe.  The oily truth of the matter is that ID can't do that, because that would require us to first know the mind and methods of god.  Which is obviously not anything any science can get a grip on.  ID has built in limits, which keep it squarely out of science and in the realm of religion.  

Evolution, on the other hand, provides a sensible process.  The universe is a process, and integral to any explanation of aspects of the universe will be process.  That's the whole point of addition to the card analogy I made: sticky laws inform the process.  Without them, you just have labels.

Quote
Plenty of people have and have had trouble with Darwin's theory without being YECs! I could go through my books, and I should, to present some of them, or perhaps I can just look around and lift some things from the net. But I can't do it now, cause I spent so much time already.


All of these people have one thing in common:  they use weak, incomplete and logically unsound arguments based on processless probability to justify their emotional attachment to an external, eternal creative conciousness. "Poppa, please turn on the light!  Its scary in the dark!"

Quote
I really didn't mean to quantify how much was left to chance as I don't know. I can't form an opinion about the quantum reality as I don't understand it very well and I think some false claims have been made about particles arising without cause.


I admit the quantum world is strange.  As has been said, if you think you understand quantum behavior, you don't understand quantum behavior.  I think phrasing it in that way is a bit of an intentional exaggeration with the express intent to highlight the strangeness of things at that level.    It reminds us that the ways in which our notions of reality have been shaped by our common sense experience at the macro-scale do not necessarily always apply.  QED is one of the most accurate and mathematecally rigorous scientific discliplines we've ever put our minds to.  IDers will have a tough time working this into any description of a design event.  Not without a generous dollop of "poof!".  But of course, we won't see a description like that, for reasons already mentioned.

Quote
And philosopically, the question of freedom versus determinism is a very difficult one. I suspect both operate but I can't begin to defend that. And how does the randomness of quantum particles affect evolution theory?


Two huge ideas probably best served by threads of their own.  I guess the short answer to the link between quantum mechanics and evolution is the same link as chemistry, just at a lower level.  It could be fun exploring in more detail.

Quote
Well no, I don't define the unfolding too tightly. A general plan, yes. The laws of quantum physics, I suspect, work the way they do because reality requires it. Sub-planck length reality, I think, is already another dimension. My little thought. Has anyone else thought about this?


One of the basic points of science is to define things more tightly and tightly with careful study.  Maybe we never quite define things "perfectly", but science is the search for ever more accurate descriptions.  Intuition and creativity can provide powerful guidance about what to look for and where we might find it, but its not enough to just say "it feels like this" and leave it at that.  Science takes the next step and says, "Well, let's see if I'm right!"

In regards to "Planck length reality", any response would be based upon how you define dimension.   :D  

Quote
Because, by golly, it would be a sad place without our intelligence to understand and admire it all. We may not be the end-product, either. But we're getting close. In my opinion, it's all about consciousness, so far as any goal type of thing.


Do you see the tautology in this idea?  

Why is conciousness necessary?
Because without it, the universe would suck.
Why would it suck?
Because there is no conciousness.

You're right about one thing, though. Humanity is not the end "product".  There is more to come.


Quote
Not sure where the love without care came from. Because I said the love was impersonal?


I may have read something into your original phrase which was unintended.  You said The question, does God care about us, is another nonquestion because there is no need to ask it, and ... God's love is universal and impersonal.

Talking about emotions is the ultimate in subjectivity, so clearly we may have different opinions of the emotion of love.  I personally think that love necessarily  implies caring.  Care, or passion for the object of one's love (however vaguely or broadly you define "object") can no more be absent from that love than blue can be absent from purple.  But that's about the emotion of love itself, not whether the universe feels loves or care or any emotion whatsoever.  I guess I'm just a stickler for consistancy.

Quote
I'm saying that a life force and love energy are just the state of its being.


Totally unsupported.  Love energy?  Is that what a mood ring measures? :)

Quote
Why thanks, but I am not a scientist and i cannot do it. Anyway, the banned JAD at least gave it a shot.


It does help if the data supports the conclusion.  ID goes so far beyond the data its impossible to distinguish it from religion or philosophy.

Quote
But what I was specifically alluding to was that pure material reductionism is an inadequate explanation of the cosmos.


This may turn out to be accurate.  But to date, nobody has demonstrated a replacement. There is plenty of speculation, however.  I'm afraid that 'love energy' or universal, eternal designing conciousness as a sort of emotional concious correllary to the cosmic background radiation just doesn't wash.



Quote
Well, I mentioned complexity, and you answer that nature just does what it does. That sounds like not wanting to look to close, being easily satisfied with surface explanations.


Explanation, take three.  My point is that attributing meaning or plan to nature's course is premature.  These feelings or intuitions about nature are human imprints.  Which is not to say that this paints them as bad.  Just that its helpful to recognize that they are based upon human emotions and desires, rather than anything inherent in nature itself.  How this is evidence that I do not look close, I don't know.  If anything, I'd say that its evidence that I know at least one limit to my knowledge.


Quote
You seemed to think that I was disparaging nature because it doesn't compose symphonies (it does, through us) and I explained that I was not and you even posted my explanation, yet still seem to think I was.
The passivity of matter is its perfection.


For the record, I don't think you're disparaging nature.  Quite the contrary.  I think you respect nature, even love it.  See the first four sentences in my previous paragraph for what I'm trying to say here.

Quote
Abiogenesis is not the place to start. Abiogenesis really hasn't got off the ground. Better to stick to problems with homology and the fossil record and that sort of thing.


I think there are enough practicing scientists in the world to justify basic research into abiogenesis.  Why not?  Would it disappoint you if science proved a definative, mechanistic, non-concious origin of life?

Quote


The god-verse is not a supervisor, because if he was, he could also act directly. The Tao JUST IS.


My view of the Tao is that it is a poetic, artful, pre-scientific explanation regarding the flow of energy, shaping interactions of matter to produce complexity.  Lao Tzu recognized that we interfere with this flow at our peril.

Quote
I suppose my views might be somewhat Hindu. Mostly from hinduism I take advaita. But they do have some notions of advanced states of being in which there is only a very subtle separation left between them and God. Everyone and everything has always existed, in one form or another. I don't know why I should know how they were created but they ought to exist. It doesn't make sense to have such a gap between our type of being and god.


One of my favorite things about Hinduism is the doctrine of maya, which states that the universe that we perceive is confusing and largely illusory.  Thus, we have issues.  The solution they propose is to gradually peel away the filters until you see the universe for what it really is. Only then does one recognize that there is no difference between one's self and "god".  But here is my favorite part.  One of the filters that will be peeled away during this process is Hinduism itself.  The idea of god is part of the illusion.  Its like Buddhism in this regard, except with a lot of fanciful creatures and dressing.  But if you follow the path set out by either technique, one of the things you realize is that the dressing up, the tales and parables, the myths around which the religion is built, and even the technique toward enlightenment itself, are all illusions.  Universe as game.  I get a kick out of that.

Quote
Oh, yeah, I missed that. Of course they exist. I wasn't sure what i said to bring that on...we were discussing sticky laws, and we agreed there might be more we don't know about to add to the ones we have.


Phew.  For a minute there I thought you went totally off the deep end. :)  Sorry about the confusion.  But I have to ask... what did you mean by this:  

--As for creationists refusing to acknowledge sticky laws, first, we haven't really found them yet (but we might).--

?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,17:36   

Re "I guess the short answer to the link between quantum mechanics and evolution is the same link as chemistry, just at a lower level."

Or chemistry is sort of between the other two. (Sort of like an intermediate?)

Re "Why is conciousness necessary?
Because without it, the universe would suck."

Ah, a new theory of gravity! ;)

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,08:18   

GCT,

Quote
I'm seriously evaluating whether it is worth my time to engage Avo anymore.  It's amazing how I can come up with an argument that refutes her position, only to have her spit it back to me later on as if it is her argument and somehow strengthens her position.
I promise you GCT, you have not given me any great new insights. as I already asked, if you think this has occurred, please show how it did. Use the quote feature, show the thread of you said, I said. Only then can I figure out where you went wrong.

The only thing I recall as far as me changing my tune at all, is that you have insisted that ToE is less unfriendly than I had thought to the possibility of God, which if true is fine.


Seven Popes,

I don't know why in he11 you think the quesiton of the origin of homosexuality has anything to do with what we're discussing here or with my opinions.

I have known at least 3 families in which there were gay guys that were large, with many brothers. And more than one gay in the family.

I have been sure for many, many years that being homosexual is congenital for at least a reasonably high percentage.

I'd like to know more about the causes of lesbianism. As usual, being women, it will probably be more complex.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,19:54   

Chris,

What is Nick Matzke's essay on the flagellum? My critique was of Miller's essay. As for partial motility, it sounds good but Mike Gene's essay made the point that a weak form of the flagellum wouldn't be able to overcome Brownian motion. This brings up something I wonder about however. All around us, we see beautifully adapted things, yet we envision a time when there were barely motile flagella and 7% wings. Wouldn't that be a funny world, if we could go back in time?

You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible. And to the best of my layman's comprehension ability, the plausibility is seriously called into question by an essay series like Mike Gene's.

Russell made some snide remark about my cutting and pasting his essay, chock full of technical detail. How odd. He's the one with the PhD, not me. I certainly have had to give up on trying to reading research articles that are just too dry and over my head, but the stuff I pasted here was both germane to what we are discussing, and I have to tell you that I found it pretty fascinating reading.

I'd truly like to get some actual responses to the points in MG's essay.

Quote
But the point is that IC says in principle if you remove a part and the system ceases to function, then that part could have not been added by evolution, and this is not true.
You can hope that it isn't true, but so far as I know, there just isn't any knowledge of how it could occur, it is just assumed to occur. MG's entire essay, and it is in 5 parts, deals with the problems that would be encountered. I'd really like to see a good answer to it.

So I didn't get a clear answer on the chromosome question. Apparently if there are different chromosome numbers, hybridization is possible, as in horse and donkey. But hybrids aren't viable. And I am wondering how the chromosome number change happens in the first place. If there is a fusion of two, it must occur during one meiosis. How does a chromosome know how to fuse itself with another and come out with a beautiful and coherent result?
Quote
CSI in my opinion in its current form is completely unapplicable to biological systems due to a number of factors, including its definition of complexity, specification and information, and the current impossibility of calculating the probability that the flagellum evolved naturaly.
Well that seems like an awfully quick dismissal of some good ideas. You might quibble a bit about definitions of information, but just to throw the whole thing out.And yours is one of the most calm and reasonable voices! Of course we cannot calculate the possibility of the flagellum evolving, we can only pick it apart and get a feel for the problems and the odds. One thing I have noticed that bugs me a lot. Everyone prefers to read the arguments of their own side and finds the other side's tedious somehow. I am no exception.

GCT,
Quote

You lack imagination. If there is a god, there is no logical imperative that this god is anything more than an observer.We could still have arisen through chance or "not-god" processes.

What is this "great question of causation?"
It's not about imagination. the great question of causation is how to account for the existence of anything. There is absolutely no way within your linear paradigm to account for the existence of matter. Something fundamentally other is going on. In order to get the label of God the being must deserve it. If there is an eternally existent being - then this being has already transcended the linear paradigm. And if this being had nothing to do with matter, then matter has also transcended the linear paradigm. yet matter cannot do so because matter cannot cause itself. And if matter has transcended the linear paradigm, then it is also worthy to be called God. Then we have two uncaused entitites in the universe, utterly different from one another. There cannot be multiple uncaused causes to existence.
Quote
There is no logical imperative that this god be about love.
Perhaps not, but if God is about love, there is a logical reason why. And that reason is that as the one and only possible source of existence, all things have emerged from and are part of that God. Therefore, all is self. And self always loves itself.

Quote

Now, simply because there is a mutually exclusive set of god or not god does not mean that the universe would be significantly different with or without god.
Of course it does. But you envision a kind of God which I think is untenable. You think I'm saying the universe will appear different if there is a God, but I rather think that the perception of God is not easy or obvious, and that the world won't look any different. The perception of God is of a different order. I guess the simplest analogy is that of a dog whistle. The dog can hear things outside your range. The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.

ID doesn't say God can be scientifically proven. ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence.

Whether we can ever test for god or not god I don't know, but ID might be indirect evidence. But I don't consider it good indirect evidence, because lesser beings than God might have done the designing.

Now, you have said that because we can't test for God we can't say whether things were planned. You want evidence for god to be first. Well, it might not happen that way. And I don't see why you should it expect it to. Many discoveries, most perhaps, were found circumstantially first. Pluto comes to mind.
I really do appreciate your insistence that the term "unplanned and unguided" really means that evolution theory has no position on the matter of whether it was guided and planned or not, I'm just sort of surprised that this is so well hidden. i wonder why it wasn't put into the text books that way.

Russell,

You say nothing in MG's essay does anything to advance the case that it is IC. Can you elaborate? I have not dismissed Mayr as simplistic, I said that what I had read so far was. For a different audience, he might not be.

You know, it is true that no one seems to know much about Mike Gene, who wants it that way for some reason, but what has that to do with what s/he writes about the flagellum?

Alan,

And what is Mumbo Jumbo about, and why did you recommend it?

Seven Popes,

Which seven popes are you promoting?
Quote
What about 6 percent of a simian tail? Some humans do develop these at birth, and all of us carry the bones for a vestigial tail.

All of us carry the bones? I dug around and found this from a creationist site:

All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. Ledley conceded that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features.
Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the "inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.


But i suppose the purpose of your question is to scare me that we might have vestigal tail genes. I don't know or care if we do. Neither chimps nor gorillas have tails, so I suppose it must be a real throwback, some 20 million years!

Sanctum,

Quote
I have two older brothers.


Is this your way of coming out?

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,20:43   

Very good continued work here, Avocationist.

I know you are teasing, but as I am a pretend name on a website it would be rather impossible to "come out" here - presuming I was ever in. :)

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:17   

Avo et al,

I'm a little busy these days to do the amount of reading it would require to address all of Mike Gene's points, but I can at least start where Mike Gene started.  Maybe someone else who cares can take up the next part while I study for finals.    

MG asks why a modern bacteria moves in straight runs and tumbles of 3-4 seconds, rather than heading straight for a food source.
He later states that the tumbling is a result of brownian motion, likening it to a boat in a tropical storm.

Well, first, I'm not aware of any evidence that a bacteria actually senses food from a distance.  They lack vision, that's for sure.  Do they have surface sensors which detect tiny particles that are emitted or break off of a food source?  Possibly.  Depends on the nature of the particle sensed.  But even if so, can they follow the trail back to the source?  Not that I know of.  Following a trail requires a certain amount of memory that I don't believe they are capable of.  Do they sense heat or light? Maybe...  I think they are too small and simple for complex sensing or behavior at this level.  As far as I know, a bacteria only knows food if it manages to physically come in contact with it.

Then, compare bacteria to other critters of similar size.  As far as I know, antibodies don't behave like they "sense" invaders until they touch it. It takes physical contact. Until that, they are just going with the flow.  Amoeba don't zero in on food.  In the absence of food, they ooze around randomly until they touch food.  Then they try to eat it.  Ever watch rotifers under a microscope?  These guys are very big compared to a bacteria.  They have a head, a grasping tail, a mid section, an actual mouth.  On either side of a rotifers mouth are what look like a swiftly spinning discs, whose edges are lined with cilia.  The spinning disc thingys create a sucking current into the rotifers maw.  Anything in that current will be potential food for the rotifer.  But they don't have any nervous system to speak of.   They too just sorta squirm around randomly until they accidentally suck up a particle small enough to fit into its mouth, food or not.  If they are very lucky, they run into a whole mess of food particles, several times the rotifers size.  It eats for awhile, then maybe it wanders away.  Yet even after wandering away, it sucks in anything it can.  Critters at this scale don't seem to exhibit either sensation at a distance, memory to know food if they saw it, or any particular ability to "head for" anything at all.  It seems to be pure luck.  Good thing there is plenty of food to go around.  These are all reasons why they don't head straight for a food source, and it has nothing to do with brownian motion.

Next, I'm not so sure that the tumbling is a result of brownian motion.  I'm inclined to think that the biggest reason bacteria tumble is because they aren't particularly hydrodynamic.  When in motion, they have little recourse toward stability.  They are kinda hot dog shaped--not the best shape for steady motion in any medium.  Nor do they have any horizontal or vertical stabilizers--fins, for example.  They have no steering mechanism to speak of.  There is just (sometimes) that rotating flagella.  The bacterium turns it on, it builds up a bit of momentum, then instability sets in--perhaps in part by brownian motion and minute currents in the water, but more so by its lack of guidance features--and so it tumbles.  The tumbling is a product of its unsteadiness.  

But that doesn't matter anyway, because the bacteria wasn't aiming for anywhere specifically.  If there is no food HERE, it powers up the flagella and moves on.  Food is generally plentiful, so staggering about from place to place is adequate to its meager needs.  Eventually, perhaps often quite quickly, it finds what it needs.  

Evolutionarily speaking, imagine an early bacteria without a full flagella, but rather just a small pilum, or perhaps several pila, being tossed about in the fluid.  Its easy to see how jutting spikes will grant that bacteria a greater ability to bind to a surface.  I'm hard pressed to say which I'd prefer--a flagellum might help me to move away from a foodless location, but pila would help me to stick once I happened to bump into some.  Tough choice.  I guess either is better than nothing.  But how about both? :)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:50   

I'm going to answer some of your questions Avocationist.
Quote
Chris,
....
All around us, we see beautifully adapted things, yet we envision a time when there were barely motile flagella and 7% wings. Wouldn't that be a funny world, if we could go back in time?
You can see a funny world now. What you think is perfectly adapted could also be seen as imperfections. Talking about wings, have a look : http://www.nature.ca/calendar/images/m_marmota_monax_p186_250.jpg Does it have completely formed wings? Is it perferctly adapted? Well nobody can tell. If it comes to disappear, as too many species do nowadays, that means it wasn't so well adapted afer all. Adaptation is relative, the environment (Nature if you want) selects the working forms, that doesn't means they are perfect.
Quote

You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible.
Protein coevolution is a well known phenomenon in phylogenetics. A mutation occuring in one subunit of a protein complex is followed by mutations in the other subunits. This pattern of evolution can be detected nowadays. Here is an article I just got after googling "protein coevolution" http://rana.lbl.gov/papers/Fraser_PNAS_2004.pdf
Quote

So I didn't get a clear answer on the chromosome question. Apparently if there are different chromosome numbers, hybridization is possible, as in horse and donkey. But hybrids aren't viable.
That's not always the case. AFAIK, within some species (the mouse, I think) you can have different karyotypes between reproducing individuals. It even happens in humans. IIRC, there is a case where one chromosome 21 is fused with one chromosome 15. After the "digestion" of the separate 21th chromosome in the gametogeneis or meiosis, the zygote can inherit from one parent, the fused chromosome (15-21) with no separate chromosome 21, and a normal gamete from its other parent. Thus, the zygote gets a odd number of chromosomes (only on chromosome in the 21st pair + one fused chromosome in the 15th pair) but the child will be completely viable and normal. You can imagine that in one population, this fused chromosome becomes dominant (for some reasons), resulting in a human population having 44 chromosomes.
Quote

And I am wondering how the chromosome number change happens in the first place. If there is a fusion of two, it must occur during one meiosis.
I'm not sure that it has to occur there. It could occur somewhere in the gametogenesis.
Quote

How does a chromosome know how to fuse itself with another and come out with a beautiful and coherent result?
Beautiful... it happens to be viable that's all. If it doesn't work it's lethal. Nobody can claim that the chromosome fusion in Homo sapiens has anything to do with our adaptation.

I'm leaving the religious questions to others. ;)

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,23:15   

Quote
Alan,

And what is Mumbo Jumbo about, and why did you recommend it?


Mumbo-Jumbo is a book my daughter recently left with me to read. It covers a lot of the background to how ideas of today have roots in the past. Wheen is "not a fundamentalist. But I'm an admirer of what you might call 'Enlightenment values' though they go way beyond the Enlightenment). Things like scientific empiricism, the separation of church and state, the waning of absolutism and tyranny, yes, I cling to those." It is also very funny.

I recommended it as I thought you might enjoy it. It proves the old adage "there is nothing new under the sun". I realise now why some regular posters get irritated with newbies (I include myself here) who repeat questions and ideas which have been raised many times before. It must feel like playing "Whack-a-mole" sometimes.

Also to Corkscrew if he's lurking. I noticed you mention Lysenko-ism in one of your posts. Have you read "A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian" by Marina Lewycka? Another very funny book, but with some poignant insight into what the political and personal life was like in 1930's Ukraine.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,05:11   

Quote
Mike Gene's essay made the point that a weak form of the flagellum wouldn't be able to overcome Brownian motion.
Again I havent read Mike Genes essay, but again experts in the field say that partial motion is better than no motion at all. A hevent read Ken Millers essay either, his point seems to be that if you go by a strict definition of IC, then the existance of the type III system means it isn't. The fact that IC attacks a staw man anyway makes this irellevant.


Quote
Do they have surface sensors which detect tiny particles that are emitted or break off of a food source?
The flagellum operates intermitantly so the bacteria move around randomy, obviously in most cases this would confer some advantage. Ecoli has chemical sensors, which set of a signalling cascade when they sense nutrients, which makes the flagellum spin less regularly, therefore it is more likely to move toward the food source.

Quote
You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible.
This is a well studied phenomenon. As I said I dont know if it applies to the flagellum but it does apply to other complex systems.

Quote
You can hope that it isn't true, but so far as I know, there just isn't any knowledge of how it could occur
Again it is well studied in other systems, it might not apply to the flagellum I don't know. I dont really know that much about the flagellum, I imagine Mike Genes essay makes many specific points that I wouldnt be able to attempt to answer without doing a lot of research. I can only answer the charge that in principle a complex containing multiple proteins that are essential to function could not have evolved. It is possible no one has a clear idea of how the flagellum evolved, I'm not sure how this in any way supports the assumption that it was designed. Our view of evolution may change drastically, there may be other factors that we haven't considered, self-organization is a promising example, that are as important as natural selection. Maybe there are currently unknown laws of nature that dictate to some extent how evolution has played out. Maybe evolution is finished. The point is Dembski, Behe et al claim to have positive empirical evidence of design, that is what the whole debate is about.

Surprisingly different chromosome structure can hybridize and produce viable offspring. As I said it is likely that humand and chimp chromosomes could hybridize, however the differences in gene expression during development would kill any embryo.

Regarding my view point, I read no free lunch and darwins black box, and several essayss at the discovery institute before I'd even heard of the NCSE or pandas thumb or talk origins. My objections to CSI are not to how his method works in principle, but how he applies it to biological systems, at the very best he can say it has a low probability of evolving in the same way that someone has a low probability of winnig the lottery. What gets me irate about it again is based on the fact that this is presented as positive evidence of design in life. I am even willing to give Dembski the benefit of the doubt and say that it may be possible to detect design without knowing about the designer. He might even be right, the point is he hasn't even started to prove it yet, but claims he has and that he has put another nail in the coffin of 'Darwinism'.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,05:54   

Avocationist:

Quote
You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible. And to the best of my layman's comprehension ability, the plausibility is seriously called into question by an essay series like Mike Gene's.


I believe we know for a fact that this kind of co-evolution is not only plausible, it really happens. Jeannot gave you one link, and a search phrase to use if you want more info.

Mike Gene's essays only call into question whether the flagellum can be adequately explained by 'undirected' mechansims such as co-evolution. I freely admit I'm not in a position to refute all of his points. This isn't really my area.

But consider: Mike Gene is doing what many ID proponents do. He's selecting one particular system and saying, "This system is way too complex to have evolved without intelligent guidance." In doing so, he in no way refutes non-directed evolution in general. At best, he can only claim that we don't know enough at present to adequately explain how the flagellum might have evolved. But he presumably wants to take that a step further, and claim there is no way in principle that the flagellum could have evolved without intelligent intervention.

That step isn't supported by evidence.

Let's suppose he's right - that currently understood evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the flagellum. What does that tell us? Only that some other mechanism must have been involved. It doesn't prove that said mechanism must be intelligently guided.

Quote
You can hope that it isn't true, but so far as I know, there just isn't any knowledge of how it could occur, it is just assumed to occur.


Again, I think this is mistaken. I think it's well known that it can occur. The question is whether such mechanisms are adequate to explain specific examples like the flagellum.

Quote
Of course we cannot calculate the possibility of the flagellum evolving, we can only pick it apart and get a feel for the problems and the odds.


I agree. But even if our feeling is that the odds are too long in light of known mechanisms, that only suggests there are probably additional unknown mechanisms. It does not mean that intelligent guidance is the only reasonable answer.

And here's where the testing thing comes into play. If there's a way to test for intelligent guidance, then we can scientifically ask if it was involved. If there's no way to test for it, we're stuck, scientifically speaking.

I have no problem with people who believe an intelligence was/is involved. I have a problem with people who claim that we can scientifically conclude such is the case, based entirely on negative data.

Quote
So I didn't get a clear answer on the chromosome question. Apparently if there are different chromosome numbers, hybridization is possible, as in horse and donkey. But hybrids aren't viable. And I am wondering how the chromosome number change happens in the first place. If there is a fusion of two, it must occur during one meiosis. How does a chromosome know how to fuse itself with another and come out with a beautiful and coherent result?


For an extreme example of chromosome rearrangement in a human, who is still fertile, see Pharyngula's
Life will find a way.

Also, please note that a chromosome does not "know how to fuse itself with another." Sometimes it just happens. And, as Pharyngula's essay shows, the result needn't bee particularly beautiful or coherent.

It's interesting that you would even ask how a chromosome "knows" something. I think that reflects your basic assumption that such things must be purposeful and directed.

That's not the scientific view, however. As best we can tell, things like that just happen. If the result is advantageous for the organism, that organism will probably leave more offspring than others of its species, increasing the frequency of that trait in the next generation. If it's disadvantageous, the opposite is more likely. There's no scientific evidence of purpose.

Quote
ID doesn't say God can be scientifically proven. ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence.

Whether we can ever test for god or not god I don't know, but ID might be indirect evidence. But I don't consider it good indirect evidence, because lesser beings than God might have done the designing.


ID may not claim proof of God, but it does claim the ability to prove intelligent intervention in life. It just doesn't live up to that claim.

Jay Ray:

I think your speculations on bacterial locomotion are incorrect. The Wikipedia entry on Chemotaxis gives details.

Basically, the frequency and duration of straight-line swimming versus tumbling is related to whether the bacterium is moving towards (or away from) an attractive (or repellant) chemical, such as food (or toxin).

It's a simple yet impressive system, and it's not hard to see how such a useful behavior could evolve without any external guidance.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,05:54   

Quote
Ecoli has chemical sensors, which set of a signalling cascade when they sense nutrients, which makes the flagellum spin less regularly, therefore it is more likely to move toward the food source.


This is not quite right, the movements are random and the increase or decrease in nutrient concentration causes a "tumble" and movement in a new random direction. The bacterium has no "steering" option, only to rotate its flagellum/a in a clockwise or anticlockwise  direction, producing a "tumble" or random linear movement. To quote from this article, which is not too technical:

Quote
The motor runs either clockwise (CW), as seen by an observer standing on the outside of the cell looking down at the hook, or counterclockwise (CCW), with protons continuing to flow from the outside to the inside of the cell. Switching direction involves the proteins FliG, M, and N.

In a cell wild type for chemotaxis, CW and CCW modes alternate (with exponentially distributed waiting times). When the motors turn CW, the flagellar filaments work independently, and the cell body moves erratically with little net displacement; the cell is then said to "tumble". When the motors turn CCW, the filaments rotate in parallel in a bundle that pushes the cell body steadily forward, and the cell is said to "run". The two modes alternate. The cell runs and tumbles, executing a three-dimensional random walk.

When different flagellar motors in the same cell are studied under conditions in which they cannot interact mechanically, they change directions independently. Yet, when a flagellar bundle drives the cell forward, all of the motors have to rotate CCW. The events that bring about this coordination are not yet understood. The mean run interval is about 1 s, whereas the mean tumble interval is only about 0.1 s. Both of the times are exponentially distributed. Although the change in angle generated by a tumble is approximately random, there is a slight forward bias. When, by chance, a cell moves up a spatial gradient of a chemical attractant or down a spatial gradient of a chemical repellent, runs are extended. When, by chance, it moves the other way, runs revert to the length observed in the absence of a gradient. Thus, the bias in the random walk that enables cells to move up or down gradients is positive.

Finally, the behavioral response is temporal, not spatial. E. coli does not determine whether there is more attractant, say, in front than behind; rather, it determines whether the concentration increases when it moves in a particular direction.* Studies of impulsive stimuli indicate that a cell compares the concentration observed over the past 1 s with the concentration observed over the previous 3 s and responds to the difference.


*my emphasis.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,07:20   

Interesting.  Thanks for the links and for the corrections.  That's slighty more sophisticated than I imagined.  The bit about chemical gradients makes sense.  I wonder what accounts for its ability to "remember" chemical density up to 3 seconds ago and make a comparison to the present.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,07:24   

The private doesn't know the answer, sgt., but the private will find the answer, sgt.. :D

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,08:19   

Thanks for the correction, most of my knowledge on the subject comes from a couple of seminars I went to over a year ago, so its a little sketchy.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,11:36   

Re "How does a chromosome know how to fuse itself with another and come out with a beautiful and coherent result?"

My take on it: Not seeing descendants from fusion events that produced incoherent results doesn't mean they didn't happen - it means if it happened, they died without leaving descendants.

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,12:24   

Henry,

Quote
A question here - in what way would 7% of a wing differ from simply an arm?

Soren Lovtrup, professional biologist in Sweden, said "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."2 Well known evolutionist vertebrate paleontologist Robert Carroll asked if the gradual processes of microevolution can evolve complex structures:

"Can changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"10


Feuccia and Martin believe birds evolved from reptiles but not dinosaurs (I didn't know there was a difference):

It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails," exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. (15)

There is also very strong evidence from the forelimb structures that dinosaurs could not have been the ancestors of birds. A team led by Feduccia studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science." (16) Their findings were reported as follows:

New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related.
(17)

Most of the rest from chapter 9 of Denton's Crisis

According to Denton, who critiques Gerhard Heilman's book The Origin of Birds, his 'scheme is highly speculative. He attempts no rigorous mathematical aerodynamic approach, which would give estimates of wing area, body weight, and lift at the various stages to show that his frayed scaled aerofoil would work and that the transition to gliding, and from gliding to powered flight was at least feasible...there are serious doubts about the feasibility of the transition from gliding to powered flight. ...the physical adaptations for powered flying are in opposition to those of gliding flight. The aerofoil of a glider is usually a membrane attached to the body...which extends out to the fore and hind limbs. In the case of a powered flying, lift and thrust are usually generated by surfaces such as the wings and tail, which are some distance from the main mass of the animal."

The arboreal (trees down) theory is also considered implausible by Ostrom on the grounds that all birds, including Archae, exhibit anatomical features which seem to preclude them from having descended from arboreal climbing ancestors:

'The critical point is that in order to fly, the animal first had to be able to climb. However, according to the design of modern birds, (including archae) that skill may not have been part of the repertoire of primitive birds or their ancestors.'

Problems in getting airborne from running include loss of thrust when the hind feet get off the ground, not overcome by the primitive enlarged scale "wings" and therefore would not be selected.

Remarking that the running, bipedal insectivore leaping after prey scenario is somewhat plausible, Denton nonetheless says that  "no known animal regularly catches flying insects by leaping after them...nearly all insectivorous vertebrate species take their prey on the ground. Only the most skilled flyers, the bats and a few birds, are able to capture insects in the air."
The Mexican roadrunner is fast, never leaps, and can barely fly, so Denton thinks the niche envisaged for proto-avis is not very attractive.

"Altho many variants of both the arboreal and cursorial theories have been proposed over the past century, to date no overall scheme has ever been developed which has not seemed impausible to some degree to a significant number of authorities...and there are a host of more specific problems, such as...the difficulty of explaining the origin of the feather.

"The central difficulty with all gradual schemes for the evolution of the feather is that any aerofoil will only work if the feathers are strong, capable of resisting deformation and capable of forming an impervious vane. Moreover, there has to be a sufficient surface area to achieve the requisite degree of lift. "

Per Heilman, the original impervious vane which supported these pre-avian species as they glided was a set of 'longish scales developing along the posterior edge of the forearms and the side edes of the flattened tail' and then,
'By the friction of the air the outer edges became frayed, the fraying gradually chaning into still longer horny processes which in the course of time became more feather like.'

But Denton says, "it is difficult to understand what the adaptive value of frayed scales would be to a gliding organism, when any degree of fraying would make the saales pervious to air, thereby decreasing their surface area and lift capacity...all gliding organisms present an unbroken surface to the air...it would seem reasonable that selection for gliding would always tend to... decrease the tendency to fray.

Apparently Ostram envisages the forelimnbs evolving into an insect-catching net, but Denton points out that it is difficult to envisage a net catcher turning into an impervious aerofoil, because a net must be pervious to air.
And,
"It is not easy to see how an impervious reptiles scale could be converted gradually into an impervious feather without passing thru a frayed scale intermediate which would be weak, easily deforemed, and still quite permeable to air. It is true a feather is basically a frayed scale - a mass of keratin filaments - but...the filaments are ordered in an amazingly complex way to achieve the tightly intertwined structure of the feather. Take away the exquistite coaadaptation of the components,..hooks and barbules, the precisely parallel arrangement of the barbs on the shaft and all that is left is a soft pliable structure utterly unsuitable (to flight). ...it seems impossible that any transitional feather-like structure could possess even to a slight degree the crucial peroperties. In the words of Barbara Stahl, in Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, "how they arose initially, presumbly from reptires scales, defies analysis."

Jeanno-

Thanks for the cute pic. As mentioned above and below, gliders are in a different track from winged fliers:

A gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks

And last but not least: (how can I resist?)
Do they not see the birds suspended in mid-air up in the sky? Nothing holds them there except God. There are certainly Signs in that for people who believe. (Quran, 16:79)

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,12:57   

"Remarking that the running, bipedal insectivore leaping after prey scenario is somewhat plausible, Denton nonetheless says that  "no known animal regularly catches flying insects by leaping after them"

Poorwill catch insects by perching quietly on the ground at night (their legs are too weak for them to stand) and leaping up (powered by their wings) and snatching them as they fly by.

Looks like Denton doesn't know guano about birds.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,14:03   

Re "Soren Lovtrup, professional biologist in Sweden, said "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.""

Well, if series of small steps is ruled out, that leaves only one huge step, which seems to me to be enormously less likely. And since complex life forms exist, that means picking the less unlikely of two very unlikelies. Besides, how does one know that the intermediate stages don't work? You'd have to rule out every possible sequence to know that.

Re "when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?""

But, an arm is already a partially evolved wing. An arm with a large surface area is moreso. Besides which "that's inconceivable" isn't a valid argument - otherwise much of physics would have been thrown out before it got started.

Re "Feuccia and Martin believe birds evolved from reptiles but not dinosaurs (I didn't know there was a difference):"

Interesting. Sure there's a difference; dinosaur is one branch of reptile. The articles I've read on that indicate that birds are closer to some dinosaurs than others, and if so then dino to bird is the more likely.

Re "It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,""

Well yeah, if one starts with the large two legged dinosaurs. So I'd infer that birds evolved from the small species of whichever group they evolved from.

As for feathers, I gather that feathers were found on species that aren't birds, which implies they originated earlier than birds. So my take on that is that flight feathers evolved from feathers that had been in use for something else, rather than directly from scales (which seems to be the scenario being considered in your quoted article).

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,16:31   

Jay Ray,

Please don't think you have to be mystical to be a Taoist. Taoism is pretty free. Even those lines from Tao Te Ching that seem a bit conscious - "Heaven regards the people as straw men" don't really seem literal.

The purposeful arrangement of parts, the well-arranged universe, the information encoded in the DNA, Hubert Yockey speaking on origin of life, calls life an axiom and  unsolvable within science. It begins to add up. Now, following this, you state that the person who comes to a teleological view is afraid of being alone in the universe.

But I agree about the responsibility avoision. This is a major theme with me. In my opinion religious people just don't get it. We are indeed responsible. God isn't going to step in and make people be good. Especially if there isn't a personal God, but mainly for other reasons.

Quote
No IDer has laid out an explanatory sequence of steps which shows a design event, and it never will.  They can't.
Maybe not. But certainly not now. It's back to the drawing board if ID is right. But you assume we cannot reverse engineer God's handiwork. I say why not. If it is a nuts & bolts kind of design, why not? We don't know how much of the mind and methods of God we can unravel. Look how much we have unraveled already in physics and biology.

Quote
Evolution, on the other hand, provides a sensible process.
Except it doesn't know almost anything really interesting.

Why do you say designists will have a tough time working QED into a design event?  

Quote
One of the basic points of science is to define things more tightly and tightly with careful study.

True enough. This was in response to my saying I don't define frontloading as requiring  more than a general outline, although it could also be very specific. I talked to a Catholic who thinks that God did something at the big bang that resulted in a totally deterministic universe, such that if you roll some dice right now, it was set from the beginning.
And I was about to reply that would be terribly boring, when I realized that it wouldn't.

Quote
In regards to "Planck length reality", any response would be based upon how you define dimension.
I hear tell of infinite dimensions. I don't know what they're talking about. I mean an actual physical dimension that is upholding the reality that you and I are in right now.

Quote
Do you see the tautology in this idea?  

Why is consciousness necessary?
Because without it, the universe would suck.
Why would it suck?
Because there is no conciousness.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a tautology.
Quote
I personally think that love necessarily  implies caring.  Care, or passion for the object of one's love (however vaguely or broadly you define "object") can no more be absent from that love than blue can be absent from purple.  But that's about the emotion of love itself, not whether the universe feels loves or care or any emotion whatsoever.  I guess I'm just a stickler for consistancy.
What if you love every human being equally. Does that mean you don't care for them?

In fact, that personal passion you speak of is almost totally dependent upon the supposed 'giver' of love getting a reward in return. Remove that reward and the love goes with it. A love that is conditional is not real.

Quote
Totally unsupported.  Love energy?
You have to be a mystic to know about these things.

Quote
ID goes so far beyond the data its impossible to distinguish it from religion or philosophy.
And I think the same of Darwinism.
Quote

But what I was specifically alluding to was that pure material reductionism is an inadequate explanation of the cosmos.

This may turn out to be accurate.  But to date, nobody has demonstrated a replacement.
A replacement for what? You speak as thought materialistic reductionism has an explanation for the cosmos.

Quote
I think there are enough practicing scientists in the world to justify basic research into abiogenesis.  Why not?
They have been doing research for decades, and Harvard has pledged money to reinvigorate it. What I meant was that we should not discuss abiogenesis in our arguments because there isn't much to defend.  

Quote
Would it disappoint you if science proved a definative, mechanistic, non-concious origin of life?
I think it would, but I don't expect it anytime soon.
Quote
My view of the Tao is that it is a poetic, artful, pre-scientific explanation regarding the flow of energy, shaping interactions of matter to produce complexity.  Lao Tzu recognized that we interfere with this flow at our peril.
I think he was describing enlightenment.
Quote
One of my favorite things about Hinduism is the doctrine of maya, which states that the universe that we perceive is confusing and largely illusory.  Thus, we have issues.  The solution they propose is to gradually peel away the filters until you see the universe for what it really is. Only then does one recognize that there is no difference between one's self and "god".  But here is my favorite part.  One of the filters that will be peeled away during this process is Hinduism itself.  The idea of god is part of the illusion.  Its like Buddhism in this regard, except with a lot of fanciful creatures and dressing.  But if you follow the path set out by either technique, one of the things you realize is that the dressing up, the tales and parables, the myths around which the religion is built, and even the technique toward enlightenment itself, are all illusions.  Universe as game.  I get a kick out of that.
Yes, it is true that for the rare traveller who embarks upon the pathless land, they must jettison everything, including their religion and its confines. Christianity, Islam, are particularly good at discouraging this truth. Even Islam, through its sufis, is more open about it. I think the philosopher Kierkegaard figured it out. It's simple really. No description on this side of the gateless gate can ever capture the true nature of Reality for those who have not yet encountered it. Therefore, as you get a bit closer you come up against moments where you either let go and enter unknown territory, or you hang back and wait to be guided, which will never happen. You must go it alone. That is why it is important for religion to stop teaching people to be children.

The gateless gate is a zennish expression for enlightenment. Krishnamurti said, "Truth is a pathless land."

Quote
That's the whole point of addition to the card analogy I made: sticky laws inform the process.  Without them, you just have labels.
But I have to ask... what did you mean by this:  
--As for creationists refusing to acknowledge sticky laws, first, we haven't really found them yet (but we might).--
I thought we had agreed that a way out of the improbability mess, or at least a partial way of reducing the improbability, is if we find more sticky laws than the ones we already know about. If we don't find more, improbability stands:

Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 256 pp.

"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon." pp. 20-21

"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth." p. 23

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,00:50   

Quote
The purposeful arrangement of parts, the well-arranged universe, the information encoded in the DNA, Hubert Yockey speaking on origin of life, calls life an axiom and  unsolvable within science. It begins to add up.
Add up to what? purpoesful arrangement of parts is a tautology. Hubert Yockey said intelligence is not required and that intelligent design is rubbish. If the universe was not 'well aranged' and we saw life then maybe that would be a better argument for intelligence. The fact still remains that there is no positive evidence for an intelligent cause in evolution.

Quote
we should not discuss abiogenesis in our arguments because there isn't much to defend.  
True, that doesn't mean it was designed though.

Quote
Except it doesn't know almost anything really interesting.
I think most scientists would disagree with you.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,03:04   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 19 2006,01:54)
I promise you GCT, you have not given me any great new insights.

I'm not surprised. You seem impervious to education on things that you've already made an a priori judgement about.
Quote
as I already asked, if you think this has occurred, please show how it did. Use the quote feature, show the thread of you said, I said. Only then can I figure out where you went wrong.

Yes, it obviously must be where I went wrong, right? One quick example, which I've already pointed out is where you chided me with the knowledge that one can believe in god and accept evolution, even though I had already used it to counter your arguments that ToE is atheistic. Of course, then you still turn around and insist that Miller must be an IDist since he believes in god. And, you continue to make comments about "materialistic reductionism" which say to me that you have not changed your position at all. It is disingenuous of you to act this way.
Quote
The only thing I recall as far as me changing my tune at all, is that you have insisted that ToE is less unfriendly than I had thought to the possibility of God, which if true is fine.

If true? You chided me with it after I used it to counter your assertion that ToE is atheistic. You are really too much.
Quote
It's not about imagination. the great question of causation is how to account for the existence of anything. There is absolutely no way within your linear paradigm to account for the existence of matter. Something fundamentally other is going on. In order to get the label of God the being must deserve it. If there is an eternally existent being - then this being has already transcended the linear paradigm. And if this being had nothing to do with matter, then matter has also transcended the linear paradigm. yet matter cannot do so because matter cannot cause itself. And if matter has transcended the linear paradigm, then it is also worthy to be called God. Then we have two uncaused entitites in the universe, utterly different from one another. There cannot be multiple uncaused causes to existence.

This is so wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

Which "linear paradigm" are you talking about that is "mine"?

Why can I not account for the existence of matter?

What must a god do to be "deserving" of the label and why is it necessary?

Do you even understand what it is you are talking about when you talk about things causing one another? Who's talking about multiple uncaused causes to the universe? And, once again, perhaps you might want to figure out what it is you are talking about when it comes to causality.
Quote
Perhaps not, but if God is about love, there is a logical reason why. And that reason is that as the one and only possible source of existence, all things have emerged from and are part of that God. Therefore, all is self. And self always loves itself.

So, I can assume that you love all of yourself unconditionally? You don't wish you were a little smarter or better looking or anything else? What you wrote here is claptrap. You've made an a priori commitment to a notion of a loving god, and now you can't imagine one that isn't loving, so you make poor arguments as to why it should be so.
Quote
Of course it does. But you envision a kind of God which I think is untenable. You think I'm saying the universe will appear different if there is a God, but I rather think that the perception of God is not easy or obvious, and that the world won't look any different. The perception of God is of a different order. I guess the simplest analogy is that of a dog whistle. The dog can hear things outside your range. The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.

You bring empty philosophical ramblings that have no verification and act like they are true because YOU said so, and then finish with a crude snipe at me, nice. Just because you think it is untenable does not make it so, just like with ToE. Just because you have personal incredulity does not mean ToE is false.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate how you have the knowledge of the possible outcomes of the universe given god or no god in order to make the determination that a universe with a god is fundamentally different, let alone better.
Quote
ID doesn't say God can be scientifically proven. ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence.

Then, they are wasting their time. Even if systems could not have brought themselves into existence by any means we currently know, it would not lend evidence to design. Sorry, but it's not either one or the other. The insistence that it is one or the other is called setting up a false dichotomy, but you wouldn't engage in logical fallacy, would you?

Of course, if it wasn't god, then who was it? Who could have designed "certain features of the universe" or "brought matter into existence" if not god? You arguments are so transparent that I'd be embarrassed to make them if I were you.
Quote
Whether we can ever test for god or not god I don't know, but ID might be indirect evidence. But I don't consider it good indirect evidence, because lesser beings than God might have done the designing.

Oh really? How do you find "indirect evidence" for god through science? Hint, you can't. But, if you figure out a way, I'll nominate you (or anyone else who can do it) for an immediate Nobel prize in any field you wish.
Quote
Now, you have said that because we can't test for God we can't say whether things were planned. You want evidence for god to be first. Well, it might not happen that way. And I don't see why you should it expect it to. Many discoveries, most perhaps, were found circumstantially first. Pluto comes to mind.
I really do appreciate your insistence that the term "unplanned and unguided" really means that evolution theory has no position on the matter of whether it was guided and planned or not, I'm just sort of surprised that this is so well hidden. i wonder why it wasn't put into the text books that way.

And, without presupposing god, how will you find that "evidence" for god? Good luck. As I said above, I'll do all I can to hook you up with a Nobel if you can do it.

And, as to the text books, perhaps you should read them. Most of them have a section about science in general, which if read goes over most of what we've described and would help the reader to understand the context of the statements. Some of the text books even go into explanation of the statement, gasp!

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,04:01   

Avo stated:  
Quote
I don't know why in #$%@ you think the quesiton of the origin of homosexuality has anything to do with what we're discussing here or with my opinions.


Avo, why did you use profanity? You know that it's in poor taste, and against the rules (you clever boots! using ones instead of the letter L!;)
Quote
I have known at least 3 families in which there were gay guys that were large, with many brothers.

That's true, I suppose.  I have also met large homosexuals. Your point is?
Quote

Which seven popes are you promoting?

The ones mentioned in Dantes Inferno
Quote
Neither chimps nor gorillas have tails, so I suppose it must be a real throwback, some 20 million years!


Remember, common  ancestor.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2006,18:13   

Sorry ive been absent from this "interesting" discussion.

Im a University student....and therefore was enjoying my spring break....

Avo-
These nice people have spent a great deal of time discussing ID and Evolution with you.  They have pointed out several logical fallacies with your position and they have admired your general civility in these discussions.

You seem to miss a few point, and i would like to clarify them

1)  Your personal insight into the "likelihood" of scientific theory is completely meaningless.  Evolution's insight into the likelihood of God is completely meaningless.  It doesn't change a darn thing.  

2)  There is no way to "prove" God...there is no way to claim that the "evidence" points towards God.  All you can claim is that YOU think that God exists.....

3)   Just because something is IC....doesn't mean that it couldnt evolve.  IC is the most meaningless statement that ID has.
i.e.  A motorcycle evolved from a bicycle.  However a motorcycle is IC....even though it is comprised of several pieces that clearly can exist without the motorcycle...such as wheels, motor, transmission, lights, etc....they dont however function independently of the motorcycle...so the motorcycle is still IC.
So according to Behe....a modern motorcycle was simply designed from scratch by an engineer.  It couldn't have evolved from a lesser motorcycle...because that motorcycle wouldnt function very well...it couldnt have evolved from a bicycle because its too perfectly designed.

4)You use an incredible array of subjective words.  Your favorite word seems to be "improbable".  Im going to attempt an explanation
The moon:  long ago several rather strange theories explaining the moon existed.  Some people thought it was a giant star, some thought it was a rock, others thought that it was made of cheese.  Until we landed on the moon...we didnt know who was right...but we generally dismissed the people who thought the moon was made out of cheese.  Why?  Was their theory more improbable than any of the others?  No!
We dismissed it because they couldnt explain how or why the moon would be made out of cheese....they couldn't even explain why they thought it might be made out of cheese....it just made more sense to them than to think it was a giant rock.
You think ID makes more sense than evolution...but we dont dismiss ID because it seems improbable to Scientists...we dismiss it because it doesn't do anything...it just claims the "moon is made out of cheese"

5)  Intelligent Design is not Deism....Intelligent Design cannot believe in a Deistic entity...front-loading is a Deistic idea....ID is a theistic idea.  If ID is Deistic...then it believes in evolution...which it doesnt

6)  You make way too many assumptions about the nature of God.  If God doesnt exist....we could still have souls and reincarnation.  Heck...Im not going to laundry list it all for you....but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism...

7)  Quit using that tired old line about Darwinism being just as religious as ID.  Evolution looks at evidence....millions of fossils and billions of living organisms....and proposes an explanation..the explanation does not defy the known natural laws...the explanation seems to be applicable to almost all of the evidence.  It makes absolutely no direct theological or philosophical suggestions.  It may have theological/philosophical implications for you....but that is completely beside the point.  ID, on the other hand, observes the data...comes to the same conclusion(that life is designed) but then goes to great lengths to try and explain the nature of the designer...explanations that are completely beyond the data.
**Evolutionists believe in design too, just design by Selection algorithms***

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,02:54   

Quote
Please don't think you have to be mystical to be a Taoist.


I professed my association freely and without prompting.

Quote
Taoism is pretty free.


Ayup.  That's one of the things I like about it.

Quote
Even those lines from Tao Te Ching that seem a bit conscious - "Heaven regards the people as straw men" don't really seem literal.


I didn't think they were literal, myself.  I can't blame the guy for using language like that, though.  It's iron age eastern poetry, presented as words to the wise for the ruling class.  He used words they were familiar with.

Quote
The purposeful arrangement of parts, the well-arranged universe, the information encoded in the DNA, Hubert Yockey speaking on origin of life, calls life an axiom and  unsolvable within science. It begins to add up.


I sure do hope there is some kind of an afterlife.  I'd place a wager that in a half-dozen generations or so we nail it.  Assuming we make it that far...

Quote
...you state that the person who comes to a teleological view is afraid of being alone in the universe.


Yep.  I stand by that.  Call it fear, call it discomfort, call it whatever you want.  Any way you slice it, IDers feel that without some kind of external conciousness, they would be cut loose and cast adrift.  You personally (and probably most eastern leaning mystics) have a different balance of fears than the more western "personal god" style IDers, but it all adds up to the same sum.  I say its generally fear of the unknown, fear of freedom and fear of responsibility.

Quote
Maybe not. But certainly not now. It's back to the drawing board if ID is right. But you assume we cannot reverse engineer God's handiwork. I say why not. If it is a nuts & bolts kind of design, why not? We don't know how much of the mind and methods of God we can unravel. Look how much we have unraveled already in physics and biology.


Yes, just look.  Its been "back to the drawing board" since the enlightenment--for the ID/creationists.  Long before that, actually.  Some of the pre-Socratics were tremendously astute and observent.  We figured out that, "Hey!  This whole science thing really works!  Wow!  Look, it isn't Zeus that makes lightning but electrical imbalances!  It isn't angels pushing the planets around, its these weird things called gravity and momentum!  Wow, look how far space goes!   It isn't just a big sphere with holes poked in it!  And look, there are these old bones layed down in predictable layers that show definate patterns though time leading right up to today!  By gosh, thats, thats, evolution!"

Every time we turn around, science seems to be explaining the mysterious in purely non-mystical terms, and it works.  That's the trend.  I see no reason that it won't continue this way.  I find this invigorating.  

Quote
Why do you say designists will have a tough time working QED into a design event?


A few basic reasons.

ID can't make up its mind.  ID isn't religious, but oh wait, it is.  ID says "god did it" but then how can they ever know the mind and methods of god?  ID admits this when it says that it just infers design, and doesn't speak to method.  If it can't speak to method, QED never even enters the picture.  Nor does any process whatsoever.  And QED is nothing if not process and pattern.

Furthermore, QED is to a large extent random.  And it's also "sticky".  We know that IDC doesn't acknowledge sticky laws.  Assuming they ever do grow a pair and fess up to things like gravity, the nuclear and electroweak forces, then the next obvious question is... what the #### kind of engineer/architect/designer would design an intricate and sophisticated system like, oh, any living creature EVER, and rely on randomness to shape the machine?

Not that I look at biology as a machine.  That's an ID canard.  The point is that IDC can't reconcile intricate "irreducibly complex" design with randomness.  They envision perfection.  They want and expect to see deliberate constructions.  What do you think the purposeful arrangement of parts means?

Quote
...I don't define frontloading as requiring  more than a general outline, although it could also be very specific. I talked to a Catholic who thinks that God did something at the big bang that resulted in a totally deterministic universe, such that if you roll some dice right now, it was set from the beginning.
And I was about to reply that would be terribly boring, when I realized that it wouldn't.


That's not unlike chaos theory.  From the initial conditions arise infinite variability, constrained only by the history of the process and the initial conditions themselves.

Quote
I hear tell of infinite dimensions. I don't know what they're talking about. I mean an actual physical dimension that is upholding the reality that you and I are in right now.


I haven't heard about infinite dimensions.  Some versions of the string hypothesis derive up to 26 dimensions, IIRC.  I have also heard some speculation about infinite universes--an outgrowth of QED.  I don't place any stock in it.  No evidence, and no compelling intuition to ground me in that direction.  It's fun to contemplate for a few minutes, but soon enough I tire.  I would rather contemplate something real.

Quote
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a tautology.


Hehe.  Alrighty.

Quote
What if you love every human being equally. Does that mean you don't care for them?


I'm with Neitzche on this one.  If you love everyone equally, then you spread it too thin.  It gets watery and loses something along the way.  But then I'm a mere human.  You never know what god can do, right?

Quote
In fact, that personal passion you speak of is almost totally dependent upon the supposed 'giver' of love getting a reward in return. Remove that reward and the love goes with it. A love that is conditional is not real.


I can honestly say I've only loved one person in my life, and it was not reciprocated.  No rewards.  Too bad for me.  I still love her unconditionally.  Everyone else?  Eh, some of em are pretty cool.

Quote
You have to be a mystic to know about these things.


You have to be a mystic to feel these things.  Emotions are not the same as knowledge.  Two different spheres.

Quote
ID goes so far beyond the data its impossible to distinguish it from religion or philosophy.
And I think the same of Darwinism.


Strictly speaking, science takes no stand one way or another on the existance of any kind of god.  Strictly speaking, this is because there is no data, no evidence, no tests that can be worked out.

Not so strictly speaking, and I speak for myself and myself alone, I don't believe there is an external, eternal conciousness.  But many scientists do.  Yes, even those.

Quote
A replacement for what? You speak as thought materialistic reductionism has an explanation for the cosmos.


I'm giving you some ground here.  I'm saying that maybe someday IDC will provide definative proof of their beloved architect.  I'd be tickled pink if they did.  Meanwhile they have provided none, zero, nada, zilch.  They never have, in all their millenia of intellectual domination.  So I'm putting my two bits in with what seems to be working.

Quote
They have been doing research for decades, and Harvard has pledged money to reinvigorate it. What I meant was that we should not discuss abiogenesis in our arguments because there isn't much to defend.


I don't remember bringing it up.  Somebody else keeps falling back to, "you can't explain the origin of life.  You can't explain the origin of the cosmos."  It ain't me.

Like I said, half a dozen generations or so.  I could be wrong. :)

Quote
I think he was describing enlightenment.


He talks about that, too.

Quote
No description on this side of the gateless gate can ever capture the true nature of Reality for those who have not yet encountered it. Therefore, as you get a bit closer you come up against moments where you either let go and enter unknown territory, or you hang back and wait to be guided, which will never happen. You must go it alone. That is why it is important for religion to stop teaching people to be children.


I really dig the eastern approach.  Its too bad the western approach is spreading its slimy tendrils all over the planet.  Really screwing up the balance.

Quote
I thought we had agreed that a way out of the improbability mess, or at least a partial way of reducing the improbability, is if we find more sticky laws than the ones we already know about. If we don't find more, improbability stands:


Ah. Well, yes and no.  Miscommunication.  I believe I said we might find more.  In fact, now that I think about it, I would even bet that we do.  But then again we might not.  In any case, science seems pretty close to something very basic and very primal.  

The pieces of the puzzle very much seem to me to be mostly fallen into place.   Given the sticky laws we already do know, improbability as an argument for god works even less than it did for Paley and all the theologians before him.

Quote
Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 256 pp.

"Hi I'm Fred Hoyle and I'm a pissed off physicist.  Abiogenesis is improbable jibber jabber jibber jabber, biologists are morons blah blah blah, oh did I mention I've been knighted? wallawallawalla." pp. 20-21


Yech.  Hoyle.  Isn't the the guy that believes that life actually came to earth from outer space?  The "sperm everywhere" hypothesis?  Is this quote meant as some kind of favorable argument for improbability?  His attack on abiogenesis is weak, and suffers from most of the same weaknesses as your run of the mill creationists version.

Quote
"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth." p. 23


Right.  Sperm everywhere.  So then it began in outer space.  There is no difference, really.  It began someplace, somehow.  Hoyle may not want to believe that it happened here, but he just displaces the issue to another location.  And I might add without actually making any attempt whatsoever to answer it.  What a wimp.  All IDers can do is complain.  

I'm incensed.  A number of us spent a long ass time responding to your questions about the flagellum and Mike Gene's essay.  Not a single word from you about any of it.  Its as if we were talking to the hand.  And then the other hand comes around and tries to change the subject, except its the same complaints from a different angle.  Not fun.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:09   

Jay Ray,

I am going thru the posts in order. I am currently needing to respond to Jeannot post #94. some of your comments on flagellar motility were answered by somebody. I have to go to work now but will probably be able to spend a couple of hours   tonight. I'll go throught he posts I already answered and see if I missed something important about the flagellum.

I spent a lot of hours reading Millers paper and Dembski's response, and I got comments from one person that showed the person didn't even realize what paper I was talking about.

I got comments saying that Miller had solved the dilemma or proposed a solution, when he did no such thing.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2006,20:56   

Chris said,

Quote
One point though is that I was at a conference last year where several people who are experts demonstrated that partial motility is better than no motility at all, so Im going to have to take their word for it.
Mike Gene's point wasn't to debate whether some motility would be good. On the face of it, why not. What he said was that a flagellum couldn't be significantly weaker than it is because it wouldn't overcome turbulance. ]

Oh, heck, now I see I did already respond to this. I am trying to figure out why Jay Ray says I ignored feedback.

Quote
I have already pointed out what i think problems with IC are.
If I understand correctly, you think that the proteins can co-evolve. But just saying you think it can be done doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problems with it. Yet two people say they have read Behe's book and aren't impressed. you were one of them. I am a bit stumped by this.

I know you have probably already stated it, but why do you consider IC to be attacking a straw man?
Quote
You speak of parts A, B, and C evolving together, so that the subsequent removal of one part would of course cause nonfunction. But all this is speculation until we can understand systems closely enough to know if it is plausible.
This is a well studied phenomenon. As I said I dont know if it applies to the flagellum but it does apply to other complex systems.
You say it is well studied. Yet Behe's chapter on blood clotting comes to mind, and it is way beyond A, B, C. I wonder where somebody has laid out for my reading level how such things have been adequately studied.
Quote
It is possible no one has a clear idea of how the flagellum evolved, I'm not sure how this in any way supports the assumption that it was designed.
I guess I find myself asking, in light of what I have read not only about the flagellum but the complexity of the cell and DNA and replication and so forth, at what point might a design inference become rational? What would it take? To me the construction of these things seems so very like something we would do that I tend to actually find it difficult to envision the Absolute, Infinite God doing it. It looks like the handiwork of a being more like us.
Quote
Our view of evolution may change drastically, there may be other factors that we haven't considered, self-organization is a promising example, that are as important as natural selection. Maybe there are currently unknown laws of nature that dictate to some extent how evolution has played out
And really, to some extent that is all I ask for. Someone once said I was not really clear about my position on evolution, and I answered that at the very least, random mutations just wasn't adequate. There has to be at least one more major factor that we have not discovered, similar to the way that Darwin had not discovered genes. But if we end up finding these sticky laws and self-organizational principles, it is going to look like a grand, intelligently set-up scheme anyway.
Quote
My objections to CSI are not to how his method works in principle, but how he applies it to biological systems, at the very best he can say it has a low probability of evolving in the same way that someone has a low probability of winnig the lottery.
Yet even if this is true, if the probability is ineed low but that Dembski takes it as more proof than it is, how does this translate into ID being a laughing stock?

As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them.

Jeanno,

Quote
You can see a funny world now. What you think is perfectly adapted could also be seen as imperfections.
And you show me a picture of a perfectly adapted squirrel. You think the squirrel is on the way to wings? What I am asking is, isn't life in a different stage now than some millions of years ago? Wouldn't it be funny to see what humans looked like when they were anatomically awkward, between true upright walkers and knuckle walkers. Pelvis not quite right, arms a bit long but short for  knuckle walking, back not quite straight. Don't you suppose that the reason the little proto-bird with its 27% of a wing still managed to catch insects is because the insects themselves were also in an awkward stage? It's not so important if your olfactory sense is poorly developed if your prey hasn't got long enough legs to run away anyway.

About the article on protein evolution. At least it wasn't all that long, but I couldn't really get the gist of it. I did try. How would you summarize it?
Quote
Nobody can claim that the chromosome fusion in Homo sapiens has anything to do with our adaptation.
Perhaps by this you mean that the changes and adaptations could have been brought about without a chromosome number change?

Alan,

Yes, I do value enlightenment values.

Questzal,

Hi. I didn't answer a previous post of yours because it was logical and while I didn't agree, I didn't see holes.
Quote
But consider: Mike Gene is doing what many ID proponents do. He's selecting one particular system and saying, "This system is way too complex to have evolved without intelligent guidance." In doing so, he in no way refutes non-directed evolution in general. At best, he can only claim that we don't know enough at present to adequately explain how the flagellum might have evolved. But he presumably wants to take that a step further, and claim there is no way in principle that the flagellum could have evolved without intelligent intervention.
But if we are to get down to the nitty gritty, we must select one system at a time to examine. I don't know that MG is trying to refute non-directed evolution in general. I think that of all IDists, he is one of the closest to belief in mainstream evolution and he may very well think that it does occur in much the way it is proposed to. That would make him a designer-as-tinkerer IDist I guess, but I really don't understand his thought well enough to say. Now, you say that if we don't know how something evolved, the only reasonble conclusion is to assume that our present knowledge is insufficient to explain how. But it is more than just a lack of knowledge of how. It is a thing which gives every indication of being utterly outside of the capability of anything we know about nature's processes and quite readily recognizable as just the sort of thing a purposeful intelligence might set out to accomplish.

Quote
Let's suppose he's right - that currently understood evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the flagellum. What does that tell us? Only that some other mechanism must have been involved.
Must? Well, yeah, and one of those other mechanisms might have been purposeful design. But if you say that unintelligent processes must have been involved, then you are saying that your mind is made up and will not take in any contrary information.
Quote
But even if our feeling is that the odds are too long in light of known mechanisms, that only suggests there are probably additional unknown mechanisms. It does not mean that intelligent guidance is the only reasonable answer.
I agree, but neither is it an unreasonable answer.
Quote
If there's a way to test for intelligent guidance, then we can scientifically ask if it was involved.
I find the arguments about information persuasive.

Quote
I have no problem with people who believe an intelligence was/is involved. I have a problem with people who claim that we can scientifically conclude such is the case, based entirely on negative data.
At some point if intelligence was indeed involved, we must surely be able to discern the difference between what an intelligence can do versus lack of same. And CSI or even IC, those are not negative data. Negative data about Darwinism is lack of gradations in the fossil record, lack of precursors, lack of ability to show positive mutations leading to new species, lack of plausible pathways to new organs like wings.
Quote
It's interesting that you would even ask how a chromosome "knows" something. I think that reflects your basic assumption that such things must be purposeful and directed.
No, I didn't mean anything by it.

Dhogaza,
Quote
Poorwill catch insects by perching quietly on the ground at night (their legs are too weak for them to stand) and leaping up (powered by their wings) and snatching them as they fly by.

Looks like Denton doesn't know guano about birds.
Oh my, you have just totally wiped out everything Denton spent several pages on. Those must be powerful wings it has. I give this maybe half credit - it catches insects while remaining stationary, but then leaps. Actually, the niche he was describing did not involve a creature with legs too weak to stand. It involved a four-limbed runner who runs after prey on its hind legs.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,07:28   

Re "at what point might a design inference become rational? What would it take?"

My guess would be describe a verifiable repeatedly observed pattern in the data that's actually explained by a conjecture that something deliberately engineered something - i.e., a pattern that's way more likely if deliberate engineering is true, than it is if evolutionary processes are what did it.

Re "As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them."

Hmm. My guess is that any particular evolutionary event probably is improbable to some degree. But the important question isn't the improbability of a particular solution - rather it's the probability of some solution being reached.

Re "Wouldn't it be funny to see what humans looked like when they were anatomically awkward, between true upright walkers and knuckle walkers."

Isn't that what chimpanzees are now?

Henry

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,07:38   

Quote
Jeannot,

And you show me a picture of a perfectly adapted squirrel.
You imply that there is no room for further adaptation in this species (provided its environment remains the same). Could you prove it?
Quote

You think the squirrel is on the way to wings?
Not particularly.
Quote

What I am asking is, isn't life in a different stage now than some millions of years ago?
Sure it is, and it continues to evolve.
Quote

Wouldn't it be funny to see what humans looked like when they were anatomically awkward, between true upright walkers and knuckle walkers. Pelvis not quite right, arms a bit long but short for knuckle walking, back not quite straight.
Look at walruses. They're rather awkward on the ground, and they don't swim very well compared to dolphins. Do you find them funny (I do)?
Quote

Don't you suppose that the reason the little proto-bird with its 27% of a wing still managed to catch insects is because the insects themselves were also in an awkward stage?
Maybe. At this time, insects were not selected for their ability to escape flying predators like birds.
Quote

It's not so important if your olfactory sense is poorly developed if your prey hasn't got long enough legs to run away anyway.
You can detect a pray using your olfaction, event if it can't run fast. What's your point?

Avo,
From this post, you seem to embrace the theory of evolution. :)

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,08:57   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 22 2006,13:28)
Re "As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them."

Hmm. My guess is that any particular evolutionary event probably is improbable to some degree. But the important question isn't the improbability of a particular solution - rather it's the probability of some solution being reached.

I always think of trees as a good example of this.  Take any grown tree, and imagine its 3-dimensional outline, including branches, bark, leaves, roots, and all.  Now try to figure out the odds of a given seed growing into that exact outline at that exact spot.  I'd imagine they would look astronomically low.  And yet, there's the tree!  Against all odds, it has managed to fill that exact outline at that exact spot.  Surely something as improbable as this must be evidence of a designer, right?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,09:35   

Especially if there's a treehouse somewhere in its branches... ;)

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,10:40   

Avocationist,

Quote
Now, you say that if we don't know how something evolved, the only reasonble conclusion is to assume that our present knowledge is insufficient to explain how. But it is more than just a lack of knowledge of how. It is a thing which gives every indication of being utterly outside of the capability of anything we know about nature's processes and quite readily recognizable as just the sort of thing a purposeful intelligence might set out to accomplish.


I disagree with your last sentence. Strongly.

What we currently know about evolution is certainly adequate in principle to explain complex features of life. One can reasonably question whether we have a specific, well-supported evolutionary explanation for any given feature, such as the flagellum. One can reasonably question whether that evolutionary explanation is correct.

But if you're claiming that things like flagella are "utterly outside" our ability to explain by evolution, you're seriously mistaken.

Quote
Must? Well, yeah, and one of those other mechanisms might have been purposeful design. But if you say that unintelligent processes must have been involved, then you are saying that your mind is made up and will not take in any contrary information.


I don't say unintelligent processes must have been involved. Only that there are certain unintelligent processes that we know exist. In many cases, they provide more than adequate explanations. In other cases, they have the clear potential to provide adequate explanations, even if we don't have the details yet.

More important, I know of no case where unintelligent processes are clearly inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life. Nor have I seen any scientific data to support purposeful design. It's not that I've made up my mind not to take in contrary information. There is no significant contrary information to take in.

Evidence against current evolutionary explanations does not qualify as evidence for intelligent intervention. Claims that evolution is too improbable do not qualify as evidence for intelligent design. Claims that we can recognize the hallmarks of design don't qualify either. Not unless there's an objective, testable way to distinguish designed from not-designed. So far, there isn't.

Quote
I agree, but neither is it [intelligent guidance] an unreasonable answer.


Well, since it is unsupported by scientific evidence, it is certainly quite unreasonable as a scientific answer.

Quote
At some point if intelligence was indeed involved, we must surely be able to discern the difference between what an intelligence can do versus lack of same.


I applaud this attitude, especially if discern means scientifically demonstrate. My question is, do you think there's any chance the major ID proponents will try to do this? When do you think they'll start developing rigorous design hypotheses, making predictions, testing those predictions, and showing how ID can usefully explain things that evolution can't? So far, I see no evidence that they're doing any of that.

I assure, I am quite willing to accept good scientific evidence in favor of ID. Too bad no one seems to be interested in generating any. They mostly seem preoccupied with bashing evolution. Their few arguments in favor of ID are subjective, philosophical, and unscientific. They make no testable predictions. They don't do science.

When and if there's real science to support ID, I'll be happy to consider it. Until then, it's philosophy on a good day, and plain garbage most of the time.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,05:31   

Quote
If I understand correctly, you think that the proteins can co-evolve. But just saying you think it can be done doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problems with it. Yet two people say they have read Behe's book and aren't impressed. you were one of them. I am a bit stumped by this.  know you have probably already stated it, but why do you consider IC to be attacking a straw man?
Simply my problem with the concept is that if you take a protein away from a complex and the complex ceases to function, this does not mean the complex could not have evolved by stepwise addition of parts. Secondly even if it couldn't this is not the only route of evolution. Maybe a staw man isnt the best term to use, but Behe is ruling out one path of evolution and then saying that the system is designed.
Quote
I guess I find myself asking, in light of what I have read not only about the flagellum but the complexity of the cell and DNA and replication and so forth, at what point might a design inference become rational? What would it take? To me the construction of these things seems so very like something we would do that I tend to actually find it difficult to envision the Absolute, Infinite God doing it. It looks like the handiwork of a being more like us.
I agree with you more than the people who say the perfection of the flagelum is an argument for design. In a few decades I expect it to be very inefficient compared to what we can create. To be honest I am not sure where the 'tipping point' would be for me where a design inference would be warranted, the first step would be the hypothesis of design making better predictions about the system than the non-design hypothesis. Also evidence that actualy contradicts evolution instead of just evidence we cant currently explain would help.
Quote
I answered that at the very least, random mutations just wasn't adequate. There has to be at least one more major factor that we have not discovered, similar to the way that Darwin had not discovered genes. But if we end up finding these sticky laws and self-organizational principles, it is going to look like a grand, intelligently set-up scheme anyway.
Maybe, I don't pay much attention to these laws of physics anthropic principe arguments, but from what I have read I have not seen scientific evidence for intelligence. My position has always been that there is no evidence that an intelligence has actively interfiered with evolution, or created organisms whole, as far as Im concerned if these laws are found it will strengthen my position on the whole thing, it just means that evolution becomes more probable. On the other hand you might be right and if the laws of physics were set up there is no reason that god wouldnt also control evolution as well, and we should find evidence, this is not an unreasonable argument: there just isnt any evidence yet.
Quote
As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them.
What I mean is that saying the particular path of mutations that led to us is very improbable is fair enough, in the same way that saying that the chance of everyone who has ever won the lottery winning in that order is also very improbable. For each mutation that led to the development of the falgellum in a particular bacteria, there were millions that didn't in the same generation. Dembski does not model evolution as a branching and pruning process, which is what it is.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,09:14   

Today I was eating a grilled cheese sandwich...and i started thinking about IDists and Evolutionists.

An IDist would look at my grilled cheese sandwich and say..."Do you see how it is perfectly melted? Do you see how the cheese meets perfectly with the bread? Do you see the uniform toasting pattern?  This sandwich was obviously cooked by an experienced grilled cheese maker....maybe even a professional chef"

An Evolutionist would look at that same sandwich and might say..."Do you see that burn pattern on the sandwich?  that is the same burn pattern that would be generated in a Teflon skillet preheated to 1000 degrees F and left on each side for 20 minutes.  That cheese is the same aroma and color as Brie.  The bread is obviously old stale bread...you can tell by the appearance of fungal spores."

Now, they may both be wrong.  I made the grilled cheese...and Im no expert.  Also I didnt make the grilled cheese at such an insanely high heat for such a long period of time.  I also didnt use Brie cheese and it wasnt moldy bread.

What is the difference though if they are both wrong?  Well, we can run some experiments and show the Evolutionist that it wouldnt require those temperatures or that type of cheese.  Since all of his conclusions are based on empircal evidence....As soon as the scientist observes that the pattern could be made with a much cooler skillet and a much shorter time....he will change his "theory".

The IDist however based all of his "theory" on opinion.  He used a very subjective term...expert.  Now,  how do i convince the IDist that an expert didnt cook the grilled cheese?  I guess i could show them a videotape of me cooking the grilled cheese.  I guess i could then show them that I am not an expert(i dont know how?)  How do I convince them that the grilled cheese just "looks" perfect...that it actually isnt?

Either way...Im still eating a grilled cheese sandwich

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,10:03   

Ah, but you didn't say if there was an image of the Virgin Mary in that cheese!!! ;)

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:13   

What is it about this particular site that it goes down so often? I logged on to reply three nights in a row and hit times when it "couldn't be found." Rest of internet OK, and this has happened quite a few other times.

Quetzal-
Quote
Mike Gene's essays only call into question whether the flagellum can be adequately explained by 'undirected' mechansims such as co-evolution. I freely admit I'm not in a position to refute all of his points. This isn't really my area.

But consider: Mike Gene is doing what many ID proponents do. He's selecting one particular system and saying, "This system is way too complex to have evolved without intelligent guidance." In doing so, he in no way refutes non-directed evolution in general. At best, he can only claim that we don't know enough at present to adequately explain how the flagellum might have evolved. But he presumably wants to take that a step further, and claim there is no way in principle that the flagellum could have evolved without intelligent intervention.
If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere, and focus on particular systems is the only way to go anyway, to gain the deepest understanding.
I know I already responded to this post. I'm trying to figure out where I left off.

Henry said:
Quote
My take on it: Not seeing descendants from fusion events that produced incoherent results doesn't mean they didn't happen - it means if it happened, they died without leaving descendants.

OK, but the existence of failures doesn't detract from the need to explain success.

And this:  
Quote
Well, if series of small steps is ruled out, that leaves only one huge step, which seems to me to be enormously less likely. And since complex life forms exist, that means picking the less unlikely of two very unlikelies. Besides, how does one know that the intermediate stages don't work? You'd have to rule out every possible sequence to know that.

Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable. Being unacceptable to you, makes it seem ludicrous or implausible to you. Or, as Bodhidharma, one of the greatest zen teachers of all time said, "Behold the mind."

No, Henry, I will never submit to simply picking the least objectionable of two objectionable theories. Better to just hold out.

It isn't just a matter of ruling out every possible sequence. It isn't just one little item. There are too many miracles in evolution, and by the way, I don't believe in miracles. And some things do appear unlikely in principle, such as a slow  change from a limb to a wing.

And this:  
Quote
But, an arm is already a partially evolved wing. An arm with a large surface area is moreso. Besides which "that's inconceivable" isn't a valid argument - otherwise much of physics would have been thrown out before it got started.

If an arm is a partially evolved wing, then anything is anything. I can only suggest reading Denton's  Evolution, chapter 9, pages 199-209, and if you like it, continue to read about the avian lung on page 210.

Chris,

Quote
Add up to what? purpoesful arrangement of parts is a tautology.
Why is it a tautology, and why is a tautology always wrong?
Quote
Hubert Yockey said intelligence is not required and that intelligent design is rubbish.
Yes, he is an evolutionist, who says strange and discouraging things about origin of life research. Frankly, I don't know what he means when he says that life is an axiom and unsolvable within science. I wonder if he knows.
Quote
If the universe was not 'well aranged' and we saw life then maybe that would be a better argument for intelligence.
But it is life that it is well arranged for. It's looking like the whole inanimate world lends support to the animate world.

GCT,
Quote
One quick example, which I've already pointed out is where you chided me with the knowledge that one can believe in god and accept evolution, even though I had already used it to counter your arguments that ToE is atheistic.
Yes, I have come to see from you and others that NDE is more accepting of theism than I had thought. I should have prefaced my comment with "As you have pointed out..."
Quote
Of course, then you still turn around and insist that Miller must be an IDist since he believes in god.
Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position.
Quote
And, you continue to make comments about "materialistic reductionism" which say to me that you have not changed your position at all.
What about my comments have been incorrect?
Quote
This is so wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.
Which "linear paradigm" are you talking about that is "mine"?
The one which is turtles all the way down, so far as causation events go.

Quote
Why can I not account for the existence of matter?
Well, please do.

Quote
What must a god do to be "deserving" of the label and why is it necessary?
A God must be the source of the universe and all existence. And that is necessary because if he can't, we need to find who/what can.

Quote
Do you even understand what it is you are talking about when you talk about things causing one another?  Who's talking about multiple uncaused causes to the universe?
If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible.
Quote
So, I can assume that you love all of yourself unconditionally?  You don't wish you were a little smarter or better looking or anything else?  What you wrote here is claptrap.  You've made an a priori commitment to a notion of a loving god, and now you can't imagine one that isn't loving, so you make poor arguments as to why it should be so.
There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust.

Quote
and then finish with a crude snipe at me, nice.
This:    The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.
was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition.
Quote
Also, you have yet to demonstrate how you have the knowledge of the possible outcomes of the universe given god or no god in order to make the determination that a universe with a god is fundamentally different, let alone better.
I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be.
Quote
The insistence that it is one or the other {random evolution versus design] is called setting up a false dichotomy, but you wouldn't engage in logical fallacy, would you?
Well, evidence that a system required design would be evidence against its random generation. Perhaps you are thinking of other alternatives than God vs NDE. One other alternative is interventionism, which thinks other beings, perhaps very old, perhaps even from a prior universe, or from a planet that got life going a few billion years ahead of ours, intervened here. I'm certainly open to other possibilities.
Quote
Who could have designed "certain features of the universe" or "brought matter into existence" if not god?  You arguments are so transparent that I'd be embarrassed to make them if I were you.
Oh, well, if it is the universe itself we are speaking of, then I can't attribute it to any other than God. Why should I be embarrassed? I have never been embarrassed to say that in my view God is the primary reality.
Quote
Oh really?  How do you find "indirect evidence" for god through science?  Hint, you can't.
This is an assumption on your part. Consciousness research is a possibility. Quantum mechanics/string theory is another. And I think there are more. In my view, reality is all of a piece. One continuum, from God to a twig. As we get deeper into reality, we should find evidence, and it is far more likely that the evidence will be indirect than direct, for the reason that we don't have instruments to measure spirit. At least not now.

You say we 'can't' find scientific evidence for God, but if my view of reality is correct, it 'must' find evidence for God. Otherwise, science is fundamentally limited. So fundamentally limited that it can never get to to the bottom of our reality, more limited than I hope or can accept if I do not have to.

Seven,

Quote

Avo, why did you use profanity?
Sorry, it wasn't meant to come out that strong.

By the way, I know a guy with two older brothers who's gay, and he's left-handed. How did that happen?

Puck,
Quote
Intelligent Design cannot believe in a Deistic entity...front-loading is a Deistic idea....ID is a theistic idea.  If ID is Deistic...then it believes in evolution...which it doesnt
I don't know about all that. Front-loading is a newish idea, but some ID folk are interested. But I do agree that it's hard to imagine a front-loaded flagellum. I find it hard to imagine a front-loaded cell. I think if there is front-loading, it was not just at the big bang, but at the start of life also. Perhaps the inanimate followed by the animate frontloading event.
Quote
If God doesnt exist....we could still have souls and reincarnation.
Maybe.
Quote
but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism...
How so?
Quote
Quit using that tired old line about Darwinism being just as religious as ID.
I do see parallels, and not just with religion. I see patterns in human thought and behavior, and those patterns often repeat themselves in different situations and times, and they also often repeat themselves on two opposite sides of an equation. That is probably why the extreme right and extreme left are often equally oppressive and violent.

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:50   

Avocationist,
I always like seeing that you have added a comment.
They are very intriguing and well-thought out.

One complaint - I know not everything is about me (giant ego notwithstanding) but you didn't just have the temerity to accuse me of left-handedness did you?

Quote
By the way, I know a guy with two older brothers who's gay, and he's left-handed. How did that happen?

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:53   

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(did you catch that episode, Alan?)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,20:54   

Off-Topic.

Quick question to Sanctum.
Did you used to post as Ghost of Paley?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,21:01   

Quote
In response to ID being deistic

I don't know about all that. Front-loading is a newish idea, but some ID folk are interested. But I do agree that it's hard to imagine a front-loaded flagellum. I find it hard to imagine a front-loaded cell. I think if there is front-loading, it was not just at the big bang, but at the start of life also. Perhaps the inanimate followed by the animate frontloading event.


Hmm...let me see if i can explain
If you understand Deism, it claims that the Creator/Designer got it all setup and then allowed it to unfold in a planned way.

If he allowed it to unfold, he allowed it to unfold following natural laws.  The natural, "stupid" laws would have created all of reality.

ID suggests that God poked...and kept poking.
OR, ID doesnt even deal with this stuff, and just notices design.

So either ID is not an alternative for Evolution at all, and in fact may confirm evolution
or
ID claims that God kept poking...which is theism

SO which one do you believe Avo?
ID as an alternative?
or ID as a theory that has nothing to do with Evolution?

Quote
If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere, and focus on particular systems is the only way to go anyway, to gain the deepest understanding.
I know I already responded to this post. I'm trying to figure out where I left off.


Completely wrong
First, random mutation can explain the flagellum...and all of the other "IC" systems...
Your just not satisfied with the explanation....its isnt a case of Evolutionary Scientists being completely dumbfounded
Second, if Evolutionary Theory cant currently explain something it doesnt mean that the theory is debunked...
it may mean that theory doesnt apply to that particular example, or that the theory needs to be expanded
This is a completely illogical statement.


Quote
If an arm is a partially evolved wing, then anything is anything.

You almost got the point.  
You like your biology in nice, neat, clean definitions...
but biology isnt nice, neat, or clean
Its vague, blurry, and doesnt apply itself well to definition

Quote
No, Henry, I will never submit to simply picking the least objectionable of two objectionable theories. Better to just hold out.


Really?
So your agnostic on this whole issue?
As I see it you already picked a theory, a theory that you know has problems, and now you wont listen to people explain a rational reason to abandon your current belief.

Quote
Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position.


Go ask Behe
Intelligent Design isnt religious.
Intelligent Design claims that complexity due to a designer can be detected.
Miller thinks that this idea is absurd.
You would be more accurate to call Miller a confused Creationist rather than a confused IDist...
You really are stretching good reasoning on this claim

Quote
but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism...


You have claimed several times that a reality with God is much better than a reality without God.
But that is only true if your God is good and loving.
What if God is mean and hateful?
Then that universe is worse.
There are rational arguments for God
There are not any rational arguments for a Christian God..thats pure belief

Quote
If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible.


This is horrible reasoning, the reason you have 2 "original" causal occurences is because you cannot even imagine for a moment that God does not exist.
If you are arguing for God because of a causation argument, then there is absolutely no proof of YOUR God.  Any original causal event would be your God.  He might be completely devoid of consciousness.
Once again...this is horribly flawed reasoning
mainly because you suppose that we must address this problem from your perspective.  You believe in God, so therefore there must be a God.  If something else started the Universe...then what was God doing?  Maybe He didnt exist? or doesnt?

I dont know if you have noticed Avo, but a lot of people are beginning to get tired of this.  They can tell that your not truly being open-minded.  Your not even considering the alternative opinions to your own.  We are all wrong and you will always be right.  While strong conviction is admirable, blindly following a belief is just foolish.

Ive told more Creationists than you can even imagine the same thing.  Creationism is a more rational and honest belief than ID.  ID is rubbish.  At least creationism has something to stand on...the bible.
ID is a phantom of a thing.
Everyone from the Creationist to the confused philosopher can support ID.  It has no clear "theory"...just something about design.  Behe and Dembski dont bother explaining...that would be too much trouble.

I have yet to hear a real reason that ID opposes evolution.
At the very worst ID is suggesting that a more complex process(not God) is involved and at the very best it is confirming evolution.  It only refutes evolution because its proponents want to refute evolution.

Go back to being a creationist...we will all respect you much much more

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,22:09   

Quick reply to Stephen Elliot.
No sir, I did not.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,22:17   

Quote
Why is it a tautology, and why is a tautology always wrong?
Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. It's not wrong, it just doesn't go any way to proving his point.

Quote
Frankly, I don't know what he means when he says that life is an axiom and unsolvable within science.
Me neither.

Quote
But it is life that it is well arranged for. It's looking like the whole inanimate world lends support to the animate world.
Maybe my physics is lacking but I don't see how that in any way is scientific proof that it was set up by an intelligent force, and even if it is that does not have any bearing on evolution. If fundemental laws are found that affect in some part how evolution has played out, this will not prove the ID claim that an intelligence actively interferes with evolution.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,02:45   

We'll get to the bottom of it some day, Stephen. Come on, Sanctum, own up. You know you want to. A left-handed lesbian can't be all bad, a few days in rehab will sort most things.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,03:15   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 27 2006,01:13)
Yes, I have come to see from you and others that NDE is more accepting of theism than I had thought. I should have prefaced my comment with "As you have pointed out..."

But, you didn't, did you? No, you tried to act as if it were YOUR argument and that you would somehow win a point against me in debate by using it. Considering it was not YOUR argument from the beginning, I think that is rather dishonest of you.
Quote
Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position.

Ugh.
Go tell Miller he's an IDist. See what he says.
Quote
What about my comments have been incorrect?

I wasn't pointing out where you were incorrect, but where you were inconsistent. You admit that NDE is not in conflict with theism, then equate it to atheism. It makes me think you are simply paying lip service and playing word games.
Quote
The one which is turtles all the way down, so far as causation events go.

Who said anything about turtles? You are much closer to that than I am, insisting that things have a cause and all.
Quote
Well, please do.

Matter is. End of story. There is no logical need for a cause, and there is no scientific way of finding the cause that you think exists. How do YOU account for matter? You say, "Goddidit," which is completely scientifically useless.
Quote
A God must be the source of the universe and all existence. And that is necessary because if he can't, we need to find who/what can.

Says who (besides you?) Why must god be the source of the universe? Why can't god simply be an observer that has the power to interfere and does or does not? Oh yeah, it's because you've already made your a priori assumptions about what god is and isn't.
Quote
If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible.

The whole "everything must have a cause" argument is pretty bad. But, I have to wonder why two uncaused items is not possible. Again, I have to conclude it is due to your limited assumptions of who/what god is.
Quote
There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust.

Thank you for proving my point. Your reversal from the position that god is all about love is nice.
Quote
This: The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.
was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition.

I don't believe you. You are saying that I am either sub-human or you are super-human. Either way, I am less than you.
Quote
I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be.

Are those goal posts heavy?
Quote
Well, evidence that a system required design would be evidence against its random generation. Perhaps you are thinking of other alternatives than God vs NDE. One other alternative is interventionism, which thinks other beings, perhaps very old, perhaps even from a prior universe, or from a planet that got life going a few billion years ahead of ours, intervened here. I'm certainly open to other possibilities.

No, what you are describing is the dichotomy of design or not design. That is quite different from the one that you have tried to set up with NDE vs. design. In order to prove design by disproving NDE, one would also have to disprove all "not design" scenarios. Considering that there is no positive evidence for design, this is the route most often taken. NDE vs. design, however, is a false dichotomy.
Quote
Oh, well, if it is the universe itself we are speaking of, then I can't attribute it to any other than God. Why should I be embarrassed? I have never been embarrassed to say that in my view God is the primary reality.

If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to try to pass this off as non-religio/philosophical and scientific. You admit that the designer must be god, but then try to say it is scientific in the same breath. It's so incredibly transparent that only the true believers won't be able to see it. I'd be embarrassed to be making such bad arguments.
Quote
This is an assumption on your part.

What, that we can't prove god scientifically? It is an assumption, but an a posteriori one, which I feel justified in making. If we were to make leaps in the scientific field that make it possible to study "god" then I would reconsider. Until then, I will maintain that it's not possible. Of course, the whole idea is a little contradictory on its face. Science is studying that which makes the world understandable. The existence of something that can completely alter existence or violate any physical law seems completely contradictory to what science is. But, hey, keep your pipe dream if you want, just don't act like it's a reality at present time.
Quote
Consciousness research is a possibility. Quantum mechanics/string theory is another. And I think there are more. In my view, reality is all of a piece. One continuum, from God to a twig. As we get deeper into reality, we should find evidence, and it is far more likely that the evidence will be indirect than direct, for the reason that we don't have instruments to measure spirit. At least not now.

You say we 'can't' find scientific evidence for God, but if my view of reality is correct, it 'must' find evidence for God. Otherwise, science is fundamentally limited. So fundamentally limited that it can never get to to the bottom of our reality, more limited than I hope or can accept if I do not have to.

But, we don't have anything right now, hence ID is not science. When IDists figure out how to measure "spirit" I'll change my mind. Until then, they have to actually bring something to the table, and none of their pontifications or whining about being "unfairly excluded (even though they do no actual scientific experimentation)" is just not going to cut it.

Oh, and science is limited, that's part of what makes it work. If we simply accepted "goddidit" as a potential explanation for everything, we wouldn't get anywhere.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,03:16   

Quote
life is an axiom and unsolvable within science.


I think he's referring to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.  If you're big on math or logic, this theorem probably has influenced you during your studies.  I've never studied the formal systems of either math or logic, so look this guy up if you want to be sure I'm not talking out of my dorsal meatus.

From what I understand of it, the incompleteness theorem says that in any formal, structured system of logic or rules or what have you, there are true things about that system that cannot be derived from the rules of the system itself.

Or to put it another way, the formal system must make some assumptions (axioms) going in that are unproved by the system itself.  It needs input from outside the system to get it going at all.   In this way, Godel formalized what most of us rubes refer to as "gaps in the theory".

So the originating quote extends the idea out from math and logic to biology.  It's making the claim that in the "formal system" of evolutionary biology, life itself is just such an axiom.

I'm not sure why Avo would use this quote if she didn't understand it.  But at least at first glance, it seems to support her recurring claim that, "You can't explain abiogenesis.  You can't explain the origin of the universe."  In so far as we can consider biological evolution or the big bang a "formal system", Godel's theorem seems to hold to the same degree.

A claim I agree with, on the whole, although I also say that we are working on figuring it out and expect we shall do so in a few generations.

The part I disagree with in this statement is that creationists of all stripes posit GOD, along with a whole host of this god's presumed qualities, as the answer to those gaps.  According to them, god needs no beginning axioms.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,05:42   

Quote
If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere...
And how do we rigorously prove that system X "cannot be explained by random mutation"? (And, bear in mind, these days biologists recognize a lot of different DNA modifications where you somewhat misleadingly (or perhaps "misled-ly") write "random mutation": substitutions, duplications, insertions, transpositions, acquisition of plasmids...)

Here's the thing. If you really could find prove that system X could not possibly have evolved, then yes: then we would be in the market for an alternative explanation. But if your evidence is just your opinion, or Behe's opinion, that it seems improbable, or that there are lots of biological systems whose evolution has not (and never will be - there being a limit to resources available for research) explained, step by step, back to the origin of life - actual students of the field are not  impressed.

Quote
Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable.
Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,13:08   

Quote
Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution?


Why do you even bother asking this question Russ?
Here is the answer

"I think that several people reject Darwinism because of actual flaws with the theory, the fact that they have almost all turned to creationism in response is mere coincidence"

Then you will say:
"What flaws?"

Then if your lucky, Avo will list some:
"List of of logically unsound, or thoroughly debunked 'flaws'"

We will say:
"Those are not actually flaws, those are either misunderstanding or completely irrelevant"

Avo will say:
"I dismiss your rebuttals, you have not debunked my 'flaws' enough for me, therefore they are not debunked"

You know where this is going.....
Its only on a rare day that you meet a closeminded person who admits that they are closeminded

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,13:25   

Quote
Why do you even bother asking this question Russ?
Actually, I'm looking for specific names and references. It's my observation that when you try to nail down creationist rhetoric to specifics, in fact it never gets more specific than "a lot of people say..." or a Mike "who the #### is he?" Gene cut'n'paste bombardment. Can't hurt to ask. Who knows? Maybe I'll be surprised.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:26   

Santum,

I wasn't accusing you of left-handedness, more's the pity, since I consider it a compliment. It was a response to whoever originally posted the research that as the number of older brothers increase, a boy's chances of being gay increase, but that if he is left-handed it doesn't apply.

Puck,
Quote

If he allowed it to unfold, he allowed it to unfold following natural laws.  The natural, "stupid" laws would have created all of reality.
ID suggests that God poked...and kept poking.
OR, ID doesnt even deal with this stuff, and just notices design.
 OK, I think I see what you are saying. Maybe I am wrong but I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking. Evidence of design might lead a lot of people to assume that there was poking. But all ID really says is that we can see evidence for design. It doesn't really address who or how, by what sort of process. And just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process.
Quote

So either ID is not an alternative for Evolution at all, and in fact may confirm evolution
or ID claims that God kept poking...which is theism

SO which one do you believe Avo?
ID as an alternative?
or ID as a theory that has nothing to do with Evolution?
I think ID may in the end confirm a kind of evolution, but not the one Dawkins believes in.

The thing is, and this goes to some other commentors as well (GCT), we've got a dividing line going on and it is not in the same place on this website as it is over at UD. The ID dividing line, and mine, is intelligent, purposive input or not.  That's it. So I put atheism on one side of the line and deism, theism, creationism, pantheism on the other.

I'm not saying there is no legitimate arguments between those interpretations.
Quote
First, random mutation can explain the flagellum...and all of the other "IC" systems...
Premature.
Quote
Second, if Evolutionary Theory cant currently explain something it doesnt mean that the theory is debunked...
it may mean that theory doesnt apply to that particular example, or that the theory needs to be expanded.
That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries. She said nothing would happen because she has faith.
Quote
You almost got the point.  
Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination.
Quote
You would be more accurate to call Miller a confused Creationist rather than a confused IDist...
Yes, that works as well. Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable.

And I just have a problem with that defeatist attitude toward reality. If something is true, I cannot say that it will be forever unprovable. I certainly see no reason to insist upon it.
Quote
What if God is mean and hateful?
You mean like Jehovah?
Quote
There are not any rational arguments for a Christian God..thats pure belief
I agree, but who is the christian God. They say contradictory things. Some are beter than others.
Quote
the reason you have 2 "original" causal occurences is because you cannot even imagine for a moment that God does not exist.
If you are arguing for God because of a causation argument, then there is absolutely no proof of YOUR God.  Any original causal event would be your God.  He might be completely devoid of consciousness.
I'm not following your argument. It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't.
Once you see deeper into a situation, you can't unsee it. I am not sure consciousness of the personal variety is required, at least initially.
Quote
I dont know if you have noticed Avo, but a lot of people are beginning to get tired of this.  They can tell that your not truly being open-minded.  Your not even considering the alternative opinions to your own.  
I'm sorry you think this, Puck. It looks like projection to me.  I consider very seriously other people's opinions all the time and I have revised my own understandings far more than most people have, and will continue to do so. As to people getting tired, you have said such things several times now. I feel scolded. But if anyone is tired, they need not participate. Isn't that right?
Quote
Creationism is a more rational and honest belief than ID.  ID is rubbish.  At least creationism has something to stand on...the bible.
Oh, my heavens. The Bible? I just don't know what to say. To me, the inability to examine the Bible and see it for what it is could be a kind of litmus test for rationality. And open mindedness.
Quote
Go back to being a creationist...we will all respect you much much more
This is annoying and uncalled for. I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter.

Chris,
Quote
Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. It's not wrong, it just doesn't go any way to proving his point.
OK, and so Behe thinks it does. He thinks that what he sees is too unlikely to have gotten itself together without help. I find the arguments from information and probability pretty strong. But you've read the same ones.

GCT,

The situation is pretty hopeless. No matter how many times I make the same point, you claim I am dishonest, inconsistent, a word twister and idea stealer. I'll be brief.

On Miller, see above.
Quote
You admit that NDE is not in conflict with theism, then equate it to atheism.  
In my understanding of "pure" NDE, which you and others say is wrong, it does conflict with theism. Now, you are telling me that NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God. But that is not really one theory. As I explained above.

Quote
Who said anything about turtles?  You are much closer to that than I am, insisting that things have a cause and all.
The problem is that we must understand the need for acausality, which defies our rational minds.

Quote
Matter is.  End of story.
Unacceptable. Inadequate. Unless matter is God. About God, the simplest true statement is this:  God is.

Quote
There is no logical need for a cause, and there is no scientific way of finding the cause that you think exists.  How do YOU account for matter?  You say, "Goddidit," which is completely scientifically useless.
Matter arises from God, either automatically, or as a choice.

Quote
Why must god be the source of the universe?  Why can't god simply be an observer that has the power to interfere and does or does not?  Oh yeah, it's because you've already made your a priori assumptions about what god is and isn't.
You need to really think about this.
Quote

There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust.

Thank you for proving my point.  Your reversal from the position that god is all about love is nice.
What reversal? I said God does not reject or fail to support all beings, whether they are right or wrong, and that this does not conflict with the need to attain perfection and lose imperfection.
Quote

This:    The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.
was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition.
*************************
I don't believe you.  You are saying that I am either sub-human or you are super-human.  Either way, I am less than you.
I'm saying that I have spend many years working on a better understanding of the nature of God, and that I had a significant breakthrough at some point, in my mid thirties. The instrinsic worth of every human being is exactly the same.
Quote

I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be.
*****************
Are those goal posts heavy?
What are you talking about? I have made the same point over and over.
Quote
NDE vs. design, however, is a false dichotomy.
So this is the same definition problem. Over at the design sites, this is precisely the dichotomy they are bucking.
Quote
If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to try to pass this off as non-religio/philosophical and scientific.
My discussion about God is philosophical. I don't think such ideas are antiscientific, but I am not trying to pass off my ideas as science.
Quote
You admit that the designer must be god, but then try to say it is scientific in the same breath.
The author of the universe and life is God. I am not convinced about who wrote the DNA code. Reality is reality. That is what I can't seem to get across. You have just stated above that God and science are not to be spoken in the same breath. Look, if there is a God, IF--- then it does not conflict with science. It cannot.
Quote
Science is studying that which makes the world understandable.  The existence of something that can completely alter existence or violate any physical law seems completely contradictory to what science is.
Do you realize that if God exists that it is already true? The existence of God may by realized as true in the future by particular minds, but if God is true, it is true now and was true all along. Therefore, it is silly to worry that the existence of God will make existence incoherent. And I do not think God does or can violate physical laws! It is a contradiction.
Quote
Oh, and science is limited, that's part of what makes it work.  If we simply accepted "goddidit" as a potential explanation for everything, we wouldn't get anywhere.
Take that whole phrase, which is a useless meme someone fed you, and throw it in the trash.

And read Bhodidharma. I prescribe Buddhism for you.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:54   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 30 2006,13:26)
The thing is, and this goes to some other commentors as well (GCT), we've got a dividing line going on and it is not in the same place on this website as it is over at UD. The ID dividing line, and mine, is intelligent, purposive input or not. That's it. So I put atheism on one side of the line and deism, theism, creationism, pantheism on the other.

I'm glad to hear that you are finally admitting that ID is nothing more than an attack on atheism. See, science doesn't make claims that put atheists on one side and all others on the other, that's religion's job. Thank you for so clearly pointing out that ID is just a religious argument.
Quote
In my understanding of "pure" NDE, which you and others say is wrong, it does conflict with theism. Now, you are telling me that NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God. But that is not really one theory. As I explained above.

When corrected about your misconceptions over NDE, you continue to hold to them. Now, who was being open-minded?

Also, note that I do NOT say "NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God." I say that NDE is neutral on the subject, so one is free to posit a god in the process or not. ID can not say the same.
Quote
The problem is that we must understand the need for acausality, which defies our rational minds.

No, positing an irrational answer to a question defies our rational minds.
Quote
Unacceptable. Inadequate. Unless matter is God. About God, the simplest true statement is this: God is.

Nice apologetics, and utterly useless for science. Thanks for playing though.
Quote
Matter arises from God, either automatically, or as a choice.

Again, completely useless for science. "Goddidit" will never be scientific or useful.
Quote
You need to really think about this.

No, you need to stop making limitations on the possibilities based on your limited imagination.
Quote
What reversal? I said God does not reject or fail to support all beings, whether they are right or wrong, and that this does not conflict with the need to attain perfection and lose imperfection.

Your reversal on "god is love". Thank you, come again.
Quote
I'm saying that I have spend many years working on a better understanding of the nature of God, and that I had a significant breakthrough at some point, in my mid thirties. The instrinsic worth of every human being is exactly the same.

And, now you are denigrating my experiences. I have spent many years working on a better understanding of the nature of god too and found it completely lacking. The better understanding that I have come to is that there is no god. But, I don't go around trying to force my opinion on others as if it were science.
Quote
What are you talking about? I have made the same point over and over.

Really? I could have sworn that you said a universe with a god would be better or even different that a universe without. Now you've been reduced to the dichotomy that either there is a god or there isn't. It's easy to gain debate points when you try to present things that I've already agreed with as contentious points in your favor. And, you wonder why I think you are dishonest.
Quote
So this is the same definition problem. Over at the design sites, this is precisely the dichotomy they are bucking.

Yes, and you and your ID pals are on the wrong end of it. Over on the DI's blog where they complain about how people get the definition of ID wrong all the time in the media, they never mention the fact that they don't use the correct definition of evolution. I wonder why that is. Maybe because if they can pass evolution off as atheistic, then they can gain more points with the majority of Americans who are distrustful of atheists. (Side point: any of that majority should come down to sites like this and see how you and your ID ilk argue and how I argue and see who is the one they should distrust. I've been nothing but honest. You, I'm not so sure can claim that.)
Quote
My discussion about God is philosophical. I don't think such ideas are antiscientific, but I am not trying to pass off my ideas as science.

Good, then you finally agree that ID is not science.
Quote
The author of the universe and life is God. I am not convinced about who wrote the DNA code. Reality is reality. That is what I can't seem to get across. You have just stated above that God and science are not to be spoken in the same breath. Look, if there is a God, IF--- then it does not conflict with science. It cannot.

That's right, and if there isn't a god? It still can't conflict with science. Why? Because science does not deal with the supernatural. ID necessarily needs god, and therefore isn't science. Thank you for proving my point once again. You're making this easy.
Quote
Do you realize that if God exists that it is already true? The existence of God may by realized as true in the future by particular minds, but if God is true, it is true now and was true all along. Therefore, it is silly to worry that the existence of God will make existence incoherent. And I do not think God does or can violate physical laws! It is a contradiction.

Yet, now you seem to be saying that whether we have a god or not, the universe would not change. Hmmm, totally different from what you were saying before. Either way, if you don't think god can violate physical law, then you don't have an omnipotent god. Also, if god only operates through physical law, how will you discern that god is actually operating and not just the physical laws themselves? Or, more accurately, how will science do this, especially without using your a priori assumption of god? Answer, it can't and it won't. Once again, thanks for playing.
Quote
Take that whole phrase, which is a useless meme someone fed you, and throw it in the trash.

So, you think "goddidit" is a good way for science to conduct business? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yes, I'm laughing at what you just said.
Quote
And read Bhodidharma. I prescribe Buddhism for you.

I'm fine, thanks. I can take care of my own philosophical musings, and I am quite able to keep them out of science and not force them on others, which is more than I can say for you and your ID pals.

Oh, and by the way, check and mate.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,10:20   

Quote
I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking.

Quote
ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence.

Quote
just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process.


Ok...the entire point of the flagellum "case" is one of poking.  The entire concept of IC insists poking was necessary.

ID without poking:  pointing to the exactness of the physical laws..
Every time you hear reference to IC...the point is that IC systems cannot have arisen without interference from an intelligent agent...AKA poking

Quote
That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries.


But, if you suggested to a scientist that his theory was flawed...and proposed an alternative that was a better explanation...he would alter his view...

i.e.  Before the whole Darwin revolution most scientists were strict creationists(not scientific creationists, they thought the origin of species was outside the realm of science)....they all changed their minds because Darwin and Geologists proposed  natural, accurate explanations for the natural history of the world.

Quote
Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable.

but
Quote
ID is the science of detecting and proving Design

So...Miller may believe that the world is designed....
but he doesnt believe in ID...which is they science of detectable and proveable design....
He doesnt believe either parts of that statement....so he is not a confused IDist.

You really seem to be missing this....
ID vs Naturalistic Science is not a case of design vs. non-design.  It is a case of detectable design vs undetectable design.  If something is undetectable, science obviously cannot advocate its existence...since the scientific endeavor is based around detectability.

Quote
Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination.

Not really.
When we compare the wings of mammals, dinosaurs, and birds we discover that they are all based on "arms"(actually hands)...they all, however, developed in different ways.

When does a hand become a dolphin's flipper?
They both have fingers, and the same bone structure that we find in most mammals....did it happen when the skin fused together?
Did it happen when they lost the ability to move the fingers independently....

You think of things in definitive terms: flipper, hand, wing
but when you really get down to it, they are incredibly similiar....we all know that a flipper helps you swim, a hand helps you walk/grab, and a wing helps you fly...

but you swim with your hands...so are your hands flippers?

Quote
It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't.


You also cannot see the possibility of random mutation....
But, clearly this is based on faith.  If it wasnt based on faith, you would be able to consider any possibility.

I can imagine a world without light, without gravity, and without God....but I still inherently know that all of those things exist in my world....but i can at least conceptionalize a world without.

Quote
I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter.


Sorry...i didnt mean to offend you.  I didnt mean Creationist in the typical "literal" bible sense...i meant the belief that God created us...specially...at some point

If that was never your belief, then i apologize......

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,10:36   

Quote
Santum,

I wasn't accusing you of left-handedness, more's the pity, since I consider it a compliment. It was a response to whoever originally posted the research that as the number of older brothers increase, a boy's chances of being gay increase, but that if he is left-handed it doesn't apply.



As you seem earnest I should tell you that I knew that and was only having fun.

I do want to clarify, however, that I am, and always have been, a complete righty.

But I have many left-handed friends.[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,11:20   

Quote (Jay Ray @ Mar. 27 2006,09:16)
Quote
life is an axiom and unsolvable within science.


I think he's referring to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. If you're big on math or logic, this theorem probably has influenced you during your studies. I've never studied the formal systems of either math or logic, so look this guy up if you want to be sure I'm not talking out of my dorsal meatus.

From what I understand of it, the incompleteness theorem says that in any formal, structured system of logic or rules or what have you, there are true things about that system that cannot be derived from the rules of the system itself.

Or to put it another way, the formal system must make some assumptions (axioms) going in that are unproved by the system itself. It needs input from outside the system to get it going at all. In this way, Godel formalized what most of us rubes refer to as "gaps in the theory".

So the originating quote extends the idea out from math and logic to biology. It's making the claim that in the "formal system" of evolutionary biology, life itself is just such an axiom.

I'm not sure why Avo would use this quote if she didn't understand it. But at least at first glance, it seems to support her recurring claim that, "You can't explain abiogenesis. You can't explain the origin of the universe." In so far as we can consider biological evolution or the big bang a "formal system", Godel's theorem seems to hold to the same degree.

A claim I agree with, on the whole, although I also say that we are working on figuring it out and expect we shall do so in a few generations.

The part I disagree with in this statement is that creationists of all stripes posit GOD, along with a whole host of this god's presumed qualities, as the answer to those gaps. According to them, god needs no beginning axioms.

re Goedel- I used to think that too, then I read the wikipedia entry.  As far as I understand it, Goedels incompletenmess theorem only holds true withing certain narrow areas of mathematics, not in all formal systems of logic.  
Thus, if you want to use it about the universe, your going to have to demonstrate, logcally and mathematically, how the universe is like one of these partical areas of maths.  Given that we dont know nearly everything about the total universe, I can safely say that anyone appealing to Goedel to bolster their ignorance can be ignored.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,16:26   

Guthrie,

I agree, to a point.  I would not say that our understanding of the universe comprises a "formal system".  I wonder if our knowledge can ever reach a critical mass to be considered logically complete in the strictly formal sense that Godel's proof requires.  (How do you make umlauts? :))  

Yet I do think there is something to Godel's theorem WRT scientific theories, however incomplete they may be from case to case.  We make assumptions about an assortment of things when forming any of them.  The various symmetries, for instance.  None of them are proved by what we observe as far as I know.  (We assume they are true going in, and to be sure, those that we can test for are true to the best of our knowledge.)  And since they make the rest of our intricate knowledge possible in the first place, this would seem like an example of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in science.  Maybe I'm painting Godel with too broad a brush.

Evolution doesn't require a naturalistic OOL as an assumption, so if that's the guy's argument, he is wrong.  Evo works whether or not you believe in a "poof" event or if the life arose via stochastic sticky laws, does it not?  So perhaps you're right.  It is only when we talk about abiogenesis specifically that the theory is guided by the assumptions.  

I will add this.  Naturalistic assumptions about abiogenesis have provided us with an infinitude of data when compared to a poof event.  So at least in science, I put my money on what seems to be working.  I'd rather stumble drunk toward the truth than be locked in a holding tank and believe I'm in paradise.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,05:30   

Re "How do you make umlauts?"

By copy/paste from a page that already has the one ya want. ;)

Henry

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,05:43   

Chris,

Quote
What I mean is that saying the particular path of mutations that led to us is very improbable is fair enough, in the same way that saying that the chance of everyone who has ever won the lottery winning in that order is also very improbable.
But as we know, the chances of repeating any sequence is very low, and yet is 100% guaranteed to unfold randomly. But the pattern to the throwing of dice is meaningless and incapable of accomplishing anything, so far as we can see. So I don't think the two are comparable at all. No matter how many times we run the lottery, there isn't any importance to who wins in what order. It doesn't build anything.

Quote
For each mutation that led to the development of the falgellum in a particular bacteria, there were millions that didn't in the same generation. Dembski does not model evolution as a branching and pruning process, which is what it is.
I don't know about Dembski, but it is hard to see how this idea of pruning could work to create billions of highly ordered and complex systems, or IC systems in which it is very hard to see how many small steps could have each been selected as positive when it does not appear that each one could have been positive. You know the Dawkins experiment about "Methinks it is like a weasel"? There are some good arguments against it.  

Quote
Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'.
Well, perhaps different people are able to accept suppositions that others can't. But the more we find out about biology, the more a designer hypothesis seems the less improbable of the two. After all, the universe most likely has existed forever in some form or another, and we are here, aren't we? Why should we be the only intelligence. I certainly have an incredulity problem.
Quote
(cosmological and chemical fine tuning) Maybe my physics is lacking but I don't see how that in any way is scientific proof that it was set up by an intelligent force, and even if it is that does not have any bearing on evolution. If fundemental laws are found that affect in some part how evolution has played out, this will not prove the ID claim that an intelligence actively interferes with evolution.
Maybe not active interference, but it certainly ups the likelihood of the pre-existence of consciousness.

GCT,

I acquiesce to all your accusations. But I am curious. What is your gender?

Jay Ray,

I think you may be right, he was using Godel's theorem. As to why I posted it without understanding it, that is because it was intriguing and interesting. No, I am not comfortable with a lot of math, or much formal logic either.

Quote
The part I disagree with in this statement is that creationists of all stripes posit GOD, along with a whole host of this god's presumed qualities, as the answer to those gaps.  According to them, god needs no beginning axioms.
Do you think God needs beginning axioms? What might they be? How can an axiom precede the existence of anything at all? And how can we speak of preceding in a state of timeless eternity?

Russell,

Quote
And how do we rigorously prove that system X "cannot be explained by random mutation"?  (And, bear in mind, these days biologists recognize a lot of different DNA modifications where you somewhat misleadingly (or perhaps "misled-ly") write "random mutation": substitutions, duplications, insertions, transpositions, acquisition of plasmids...)  
So all those are nonrandom? So the ability to intelligently and purposefully turn on mutation events evolved randomly?

Quote

Here's the thing. If you really could find prove that system X could not possibly have evolved, then yes: then we would be in the market for an alternative explanation. But if your evidence is just your opinion, or Behe's opinion, that it seems improbable, or that there are lots of biological systems whose evolution has not (and  never will be - there being a limit to resources available for research) explained, step by step, back to the origin of life - actual students of the field are not impressed.
It cannot be retraced I guess, but there needs to be plausible ideas for how these systems could have evolved.

Quote

Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable.
Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution?
At one point I kept a list of paleontologists who tried to find some kind of saltation theory that could somehow coincide with a belief in evolution. As to whether these and the many others were objective in their search for truth, we will probably not agree. But it is silly to present this argument, because said lack of objectivity and precommitments are found on all sides. Your typing of creationists is right in so far as biblical literalists go, but that is by no means all religious people.  

Puck,
Quote
"I think that several people reject Darwinism because of actual flaws with the theory, the fact that they have almost all turned to creationism in response is mere coincidence"
Tell me how many alternatives you see. If we suppose that some people actually see flaws in the theory, wouldn't that increase the likelihood the world was created? Is that so illogical?

As to flaws. Homology.

Quote
Actually, I'm looking for specific names and references. It's my observation that when you try to nail down creationist rhetoric to specifics, in fact it never gets more specific than "a lot of people say..." or a   Mike "who the #### is he?" Gene cut'n'paste bombardment. Can't hurt to ask. Who knows? Maybe I'll be surprised.
Are you saying that I couldn't come up with a list if I were willing to spend the time on your homework assignment? Are you saying I couldn't come up with names and references of people who find problems with paleontology and other aspects of NDE? I find this useless. I don't have endless time.

Who is Mike Gene? Mike Gene for some reason finds it necessary to protect his identity. Why do you find my cut and paste so offensive? Mike Gene's qualifications are irrelevant. He may be an 8th grade dropout like me who reads in his spare time. Are you planning to bring him before the hiring board of your institution? If not, then perhaps you can give us a reasoned response to the parts I cut and paste because they are fascinating, and I spent many hours reading what he has to say about the flagellum, and I spent a good deal of time finding what I thought the most interesting, and readable, portions with which to whet your appetite. I can only imagine the hours it took to put that huge essay together. It is far, far more advanced that what Behe presented in Black Box. So far all you've done is mock his credentials and my cut and paste. You strongly urged me to get some specific arguments, but you don't really want them. You don't really want to look, do you? It's just all about tossing insults. And who has the right credentials to toss those insults.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:08   

Quote
Are you saying I couldn't come up with names and references of people who find problems with paleontology and other aspects of NDE?
That's exactly what I'm saying. At least not credible (i.e. published in peer-reviewed professional journals) people, with objections that have anything to do with the issues you raise.

Quote
I find this useless. I don't have endless time.
Yeah. Me too.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:24   

Quote
As you seem earnest I should tell you that I knew that and was only having fun.
Yeah, I knew you were having fun, but I thought you were also perplexed about the left-handedness comment.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:53   

Quote
So far all you've done is mock his credentials and my cut and paste.

Did I mock "Mike Gene's" credentials? Please quote me. For all I know, s/he's a brilliant something-ologist with three PhD's. What I was trying to point out is that, with no shortage of experts on bacterial flagella to choose from, with research records, and lots of evidence that they have not only thought about what they're writing, but have subjected their ideas to professional scrutiny, it seems unwise to rely on someone who won't even tell you his name, let alone why you should take his word for anything.

Quote
You strongly urged me to get some specific arguments, but you don't really want them. You don't really want to look, do you? It's just all about tossing insults. And who has the right credentials to toss those insults
I am genuinely puzzled by this.

What evidence do you have about what I "really want"? I could be wrong, but I've always thought of myself as being unusually slow to "toss insults". Again, any specific instances you can cite? Last time, you accused me of calling Spetner (or someone) "malicious", I challenged you to find the quote. You never did. Of course, you never retracted the accusation - you just said you didn't "have time" to track it down, or some such.

Well, I'm suggesting that it's the same story with your list of Darwin-doubting paleontologists, and much of your other rather tenuous intimations of supporting data. I'm suggesting that, when we do take the trouble to track these things down, it always plays out just like the Spetner thing did: your trusting Some Guy's argument, because he agrees with you, rather than agreeing with Some Guy, because he's actually made a compelling case.

BTW - are we still waiting for Spetner to get back you on why he screwed up, and what steps he's taking to set the record straight?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:41   

Quote
Do you think God needs beginning axioms?


Of course I do.  God is man's creation, not the other way around.  

Quote
What might they be?


If we paint Godel's Theorem with the same broad brush that Yockey did with biology, the "formal system" of any theology is built upon axioms centered around human curiosity and human fear.  We have a powerful urge to know things.  Understanding how the world works is helpful survival behavior.  In pre-scientific eras, the freakiest stuff around were those things that could potentially kill us.  We had very little information that could explain earthquakes, volcanos, lightning bolts, horrible diseases.  Solar eclipses, while not inherently deadly, were just spooky to a lot of people.  (Heck, they still might be today if you happen not to be in the know.)  Conversely, we knew next to nothing about what made flowers grow, what made the sun shine, where babies came from, and what was thing crazy thing called love?  Emotions in general were worth explaining and understanding.  

We were compelled by our urge to know, but limited in our knowledge.  Thus we created god to explain all the things that were unexplainable at the time.  It helped to allay our fears and let us get on with the day.  And it gave us some hope when we were confused.  God has always flourished where mystery is deepest.  Back when we were mostly small illiterate communities, theology had survival value.

Quote
How can an axiom precede the existence of anything at all? And how can we speak of preceding in a state of timeless eternity?


Part of me thinks these are meaningless questions in the context of science.  Eternity is great fun to ponder, but scientifically beyond our grasp.  Surely you know that to ask what came before eternity is unanswerable.  The question is nonsensical.  It's mind tweaking if you enjoy that sort of thing, which I do sometimes.  But in a sincere discussion, I have to wonder what is your point?  Or let me pose you this question in return: what color is the smell of leather?

But in a more philosophical frame of mind, I think the best response to unanswered questions is always, I don't know.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:44   

Russ,

Quote

Did I mock "Mike Gene's" credentials?
Not directly.

Quote
What I was trying to point out is that, with no shortage of experts on bacterial flagella to choose from, with research records, and lots of evidence that they have not only thought about what they're writing, but have subjected their ideas to professional scrutiny, it seems unwise to rely on someone who won't even tell you his name, let alone why you should take his word for anything.
Well, that is your prerogative. I'm pretty sure I already linked to an essay by Frank Tipler about the problems with the peer review process, how it enforces orthodoxy, and resists innovation. Not giving one's name is certainly an irregular situation, but then, s/he may have very good reasons for it.

Quote
Last time, you accused me of calling Spetner (or someone) "malicious", I challenged you to find the quote. You never did. Of course, you never retracted the accusation - you just said you didn't "have time"  to track it down, or some such.
I said that I spent more time than it was worth to look it up. I was definitely remembering something I saw, and I couldn't find it. I also said perhaps it was not you who said it. I can neither retract nor stand by it. I'm just not interested in this level of personal bickering.

Obviously the most famous paleontologist with a problem is Gould. Not that he gave up on evolution, but he definitely saw a problem with the data.

Quote

BTW - are we still waiting for Spetner to get back to you on why he screwed up, and what steps he's taking to set the record straight?
Unfortunately, yes. That is, he got back to me the one time, and what he said indicated he didn't understand what he did. So I pointed it out more carefully, and he has not ever answered.

Jay,

Quote
God is man's creation, not the other way around.
In that case, we are not having the discussion I thought we were having.

Quote
How can an axiom precede the existence of anything at all? And how can we speak of preceding in a state of timeless eternity?

Part of me thinks these are meaningless questions in the context of science.  Eternity is great fun to ponder, but scientifically beyond our grasp.  Surely you know that to ask what came before eternity is unanswerable.
Yes, that was what I was pointing out.  
Quote
The question is nonsensical.  It's mind tweaking if you enjoy that sort of thing, which I do sometimes.  But in a sincere discussion, I have to wonder what is your point?  Or let me pose you this question in return: what color is the smell of leather?
The whole thing became meaningless since we were not in the same discussion.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,04:52   

Let's recap:
Quote
(Avo: ) Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable.
Quote
(me: )Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution?
Actually, I'm looking for specific names and references. It's my observation that when you try to nail down creationist rhetoric to specifics, in fact it never gets more specific ...
Quote
(Avo: )Are you saying that I couldn't come up with a list if I were willing to spend the time on your homework assignment? Are you saying I couldn't come up with names and references of people who find problems with paleontology and other aspects of NDE?
Quote
(me: )That's exactly what I'm saying.
Quote
(Avo: ) Obviously the most famous paleontologist with a problem is Gould. Not that he gave up on evolution, but he definitely saw a problem with the data.

Right. Gould. Just as I expected, someone with issues having nothing to do with yours.

I see a pattern here. You believe what you believe; facts, evidence, the fruits of millions of person-hours of research - they are made to fit your preconceptions. Some are ignored, some are "mis-remembered". Lee Spetner, "Mike Gene", Behe (and I'm guessing Dembski, Wells and the rest of the DI's propagandists?) - their word need not be questioned. And to back up their skepticism, there's this ghost army of Darwin-doubting paleontologists that exist in your mind. When pressed, and pressed, and pressed again for any specific examples, you offer up... Stephen Jay Gould!

And you're not interested in petty bickering, but you accuse me of being only interested in "tossing insults" - without being able to identify one.

'nuff said.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,16:04   

Quote
...we are not having the discussion I thought we were having.


What discussion do you think we were having?  Here all this time I thought we were trying to establish the relevance of theology (or just plain god) to biology.  I've never hidden the fact that I am an atheist.  What is so different about this latest post of mine that invalidates our entire communication?

Quote
The whole thing became meaningless since we were not in the same discussion.


I sense the cold shoulder.  Sigh.  Such is the lot of an atheist.   Anyway, have a good one. :)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,16:45   

Well you know Russell, you can twist things how you like. You ignored the part where I said I once had a list. That was some months ago. The list might not be as big as you'd like. I recall about 5 names. But when I said a lot of people, I didn't mean only actual paleontoloists.

I make a statement about how evolution skeptics react to paleontology, and suddenly I am discredited because I am not willing to look up names for you. It would no doubt take a while. Or maybe not. You ask for details on why I doubt evolution, but when I provide them I get little comment.

And I don't know why you say Gould's issues have nothing to do with mine. I haven't read his books, but I have read some excerpts.

Jay Ray,

I don't actually recall you saying you were an atheist, but that is fine with me. No cold shoulder. My husband is or was an atheist. Now he says he is an agnostic, and I'm not cold to him at all.   ;)    Furthermore, I actually respect him as a fairly spiritually advanced person. See, in my weird view of things, one's professed beliefs or lack thereof has only a little to do with one's spiritual life.  
I didn't get the sense from our discussions though, that your sum assessment of theology is that God is a figment of the imagination. I mean, in that case, what is there to say? At any rate, it caused a misunderstanding.

But I am intrigued by your hope for an afterlife. Can you elaborate?

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,17:14   

Quote

I don't actually recall you saying you were an atheist, but that is fine with me.


I guess I never came out and used that label.  I don't like labels.  Too confining.  But I have said many times I have seen no compelling evidence for an eternal, external, concious creative intelligence.  At one point, I even said I'd be tickled pink if it turned out there was one.  The gist being, I don't believe it, but hey, if it turns out there is one I'm willing to hear the guy out.

Quote
But I am intrigued by your hope for an afterlife. Can you elaborate?


Well, let me put it as simply as I can.

At this point, I want to live indefinately.  I'm not in any way satisfied with the length of the human lifespan.  I want my personality to continue on for as long as I want it to.  That could be forever, that could be some amount less.  So I'm not so much concerned about an afterlife as I am extending the one I am living right now.

I'd settle for an afterlife of some sort, so long as its *me* doing the afterliving.  However, I'm not at all persuaded by typical theological propositions for this.  It's wishful thinking with no evidence whatsoever for their claims.  If it turns out I'm wrong and there is an afterlife where my personality lives on, I'm willing to listen to the organizers or controllers or managers of the thing.  It could be a good time.

But back down here on reality-based earth, I realize that I will die, that my body will decompose into its constituent parts, and that those parts will be taken up into later generations of life.  I suppose in a wiggly sort of way this is immortality.  But the whole that is *me* will necessarily end when my body dies.  I accept this fact.  Doesn't mean I have to like it. :)

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,04:28   

Quote
You ignored the part where I said I once had a list
Rather than be accused of "tossing insults", I'll just repeat this. I think it speaks for itself.
Quote
But when I said a lot of people, I didn't mean only actual paleontoloists.
That's true. You said:
Quote
Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable
So I'm challenging you to name some of them. I want to see whether there's any reason to believe any of them understand the paleontology they question.

Quote
And I don't know why you say Gould's issues have nothing to do with mine. I haven't read his books,
Hmmm. That is a dilemma. Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't you read one or two of them?
Quote
but I have read some excerpts.
Yeah. So have I. Excerpted by scrupulous scholars, like our friends at Answers in Genesis, or the Discovery Institute. Are you familiar with the term "quote-mining"?

Let's cut to the chase. Your whole issue is that the evidence - paleontological, molecular, whatever - leads serious students of the field to the conclusion that life on earth requires intelligent input, right? There's no doubt where Gould stood on that issue, and it wasn't with you. If you want to discuss the timing and dynamics by which "random mutation and natural selection" happened, then Gould's your man.

But that's not the point, is it?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,06:39   

Quote
You ask for details on why I doubt evolution, but when I provide them I get little comment.
"Providing details" has to amount to more than "I once had a list of authors I haven't read who have been quote-mined by creationists" or "it seems improbable to me - and to Behe, too!" Was there something more substantive than that that I missed?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,12:41   

Quote
But as we know, the chances of repeating any sequence is very low, and yet is 100% guaranteed to unfold randomly. But the pattern to the throwing of dice is meaningless and incapable of accomplishing anything, so far as we can see. So I don't think the two are comparable at all. No matter how many times we run the lottery, there isn't any importance to who wins in what order. It doesn't build anything.

Quote
I don't know about Dembski, but it is hard to see how this idea of pruning could work to create billions of highly ordered and complex systems, or IC systems in which it is very hard to see how many small steps could have each been selected as positive when it does not appear that each one could have been positive. You know the Dawkins experiment about "Methinks it is like a weasel"? There are some good arguments against it.  

I did say it wasnt a good analogy, I havent heard any decent analogy describing biological evolution. I think IC is a different argument from probability, Im not trying to argue that an entire protein or set of proteins will from form random sequences or anything like that, so I am inferring that there is some kind of path. Thinking about it perhaps the probabilistic arguments are irrelevant, if the flagellum had to evolve by entirely new proteins evolving spontaneously from hundreds of simeltaneous mutations in random sequence, that IDists would have a good argument, although I dont think any biologist is claiming that. On the other hand if it could have formed by succesive mutations, then the population size and mutation rate of E.coli mean "search space" or whatever people are calling it these days is explored fairly quickly. I will have a look through NFL again and remind myself exactly how Dembski calculates his probability.

The weasel program was meant to demonstrate cumulative selection not evolution.

Quote
But the more we find out about biology, the more a designer hypothesis seems the less improbable of the two.
Why? I read several evolutionary biology papers a week and I think the exact opposite. I don't even think that biological systems have the 'appearence' of design. Just because Im a scientist doesn't mean Im right of course but I certainly haven't heard a designer hypothesis that explains the evidence better than current evolutionary theory.

Quote
Maybe not active interference, but it certainly ups the likelihood of the pre-existence of consciousness.
This may be an irreconcilable philosophical difference, sufficed to say any of the laws I described would not be any more proof of this consiouness to me than if they did not exist. Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a god, but I would still need scientific evidence of his involvement in evolution.

Quote
So all those are nonrandom? So the ability to intelligently and purposefully turn on mutation events evolved randomly?
I had this problem over at UD, the best way to look at it is that random means that the organism does not know which mutations will increase fitness.

Quote
It cannot be retraced I guess, but there needs to be plausible ideas for how these systems could have evolved.
Presumably you mean that we need an evolutionary path for every single system for it to be scientifically acceptable to infer that it did evolve?

Quote
At one point I kept a list of paleontologists who tried to find some kind of saltation theory that could somehow coincide with a belief in evolution.
I would say that modern evolutionary theory certainly does not rule it out.

Quote
As to flaws. Homology.
Why is that a flaw, have I missed something?

Quote
I'm pretty sure I already linked to an essay by Frank Tipler about the problems with the peer review process, how it enforces orthodoxy, and resists innovation.
This may be true in some cases, but in many cases journals are so eager to publish innovative 'against the grain' work that big name journals can end up publishing bad papers.

EDIT: And no Im not referring to Strenberg or any other 'ID' paper.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,01:41   

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 31 2006,11:43)
GCT,

I acquiesce to all your accusations. But I am curious. What is your gender?

I'm not sure why that would be important, but my gender is "Mike Gene." Just messing with you. I'm male.

Hey, thanks for playing. I'm glad that we could come to a solution about how ID is not only not science, but also religious apologetics.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,02:48   

Quote
You ignored the part where I said I once had a list. That was some months ago. The list might not be as big as you'd like. I recall about 5 names.

A list of 57 names:
My list

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,03:28   

Regarding probability arguments and the evolution of systems, it is also probably worth pointing out that short random sequences being bound by a transcription factor, and random rearrangement of short protein domains resulting in novel protein interactions is a fairly common phenomenon (evolutionarily speaking). I suspect that this gives evolution a lot to play with, although I imagine there's some very good reason why it doesn't count as generating specified complexity.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,20:32   

Russell, you said:

Quote
Now, apologies for sending what looks like a "form letter" to all our anti-evo friends, but I contend  that their arguments always founder when you demand specifics: specific quotes, specific numbers, specific data...

If you let them get away with "it's common knowledge that..." or "Darwinists always claim that...",  it never ends.

Works for Shi, works for Avo, even works for Thordaddy. (Oh, sure, Thor keeps coming back for more, but you'll notice he never follows up - he just changes the subject.)


And all this because I pointed out that a lot of people are disturbed by the problems in paleontolgoy, more perhaps than anything else. And you've gone from wanting a list of paleontologists, to just a list of said people. But I have authors here in my bookcaase that discuss problems with paleontology. What is so special about this "detail" other than avoiding the details that I have brought up to discuss - such as why do you and others here think that Miller ever really refuted anything that Behe said about the flagellum in his paper the Flagellum Unspun, and what is your reaction to the very specific details that Mike Gene brings out in the assembly and function of the flagellum? But no, you think you've got brownie points for asking me to come up with names of people who have a problem with paleontology.

Quote
Are you familiar with the term "quote-mining"?
Yes. I am familiar with quoting out of context. A big sin in my book. So what is quote mining?
Quote
Let's cut to the chase. Your whole issue is that the evidence - paleontological, molecular, whatever - leads serious students of the field to the conclusion that life on earth requires intelligent input, right?
Yes, or at least that current theory is inadequate to the extent that when the real facts become known (if ever) that it will be fundamentally altered.
Quote
There's no doubt where Gould stood on that issue, and it wasn't with you.
But it doesn't matter. Unless the items are quoted out of context so that they convey a different meaning than the author intended, there is nothing wrong with noting the sheer magnitude of of admitted problems in evolution. That said authors adhere steadfastly to evolution adds to the human interest.

Jay Ray,

Quote
At this point, I want to live indefinately. I'm not in any way satisfied with the length of the human lifespan.
It's absolutely unacceptable.
Quote
I want my personality to continue on for as long as I want it to.
Agreed. I applaud your honesty.

Quote
That could be forever, that could be some amount less.  So I'm not so much concerned about an afterlife as I am extending the one I am living right now.
May I suggest you become an alchemist?

Quote
I'd settle for an afterlife of some sort, so long as its *me* doing the afterliving.
That's a bit tricky. The question is, who are you?

Quote
However, I'm not at all persuaded by typical theological propositions for this.  It's wishful thinking with no evidence whatsoever for their claims.
Some of it  is wishful thinking, and most of what people consider the "me" of them, their personality, is an encumbrance and a barrier. But one does want one's consciousness. I think there is evidence for these things, but it is not accepted by some people. However, the evidence seems to be accumulating. We are living in interesting times.

Quote
If it turns out I'm wrong and there is an afterlife where my personality lives on, I'm willing to listen to the organizers or controllers or managers of the thing.  It could be a good time.
But the reason I asked is that atheism doesn't usually mix with hopes for an afterlife.

Quote
But back down here on reality-based earth, I realize that I will die, that my body will decompose into its constituent parts, and that those parts will be taken up into later generations of life.  I suppose in a wiggly sort of way this is immortality.
Notvery satisfying, is it?

Quote
But the whole that is *me* will necessarily end when my body dies.  I accept this fact.
May be only the body dies.

Anyway, the answers to these questions has been my quest.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:50   

Quote
May I suggest you become an alchemist?


I remember Newton and some of those wacky taoists became sidetracked down the red herring called alchemy.  This should come as no surprise in modern times.  Anytime we've tried to combine mysticism with science, its failed.  Gee, I wonder why that could be....

Quote
That's a bit tricky. The question is, who are you?


I'm familiar and comfortable with the idea that this thing called "me" is an illusion.  What I am really is just a wave in the ocean we know as the universe.  Every wave eventually crashes against the shore, whereupon it takes another form.  I'm cool with that.

Quote
But one does want one's consciousness.


I do.  How cool would it be to be a wave that rolls up onto the shore and manages to keep on going, maneuvering at will?  It won't happen, but it would be preferable.

Quote
I think there is evidence for these things, but it is not accepted by some people. However, the evidence seems to be accumulating.


I'd be one of those that wants evidence beyond what can be provided by anecdote.  Channeling doesn't count.  Regression hypnosis doesn't count.  Near death experiences don't count.  In the end, no matter how many of these stories accumulate, they are still all just stories.  

Quote
We are living in interesting times.


Every moment is interesting, don't you think?

Quote
But the reason I asked is that atheism doesn't usually mix with hopes for an afterlife.


I think you misunderstand many atheists.  Atheism isn't necessarily a rejection of god or other mystical tenets.  Rather, it is disbelief in the reality of these things for lack of credible evidence.  We withhold judgement until the facts are in.  Many of us would welcome these things if they were demonstrated.  But so far, the the so-called evidence is anecdotal, vague, contradictory and entirely unpersuasive.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  

Deep down, I tend to think that god doesn't exist, in just the same way that I don't believe in the invisible Sock Gnome who lives in my laundry room and steals my socks from time to time.  Or that I can make a red light turn green through an act of focused willpower.  Or that spellcasting is possible.  But I'd be fascinated if these or a million other magical things were true.  Its just that they aren't.

Quote
But back down here on reality-based earth, I realize that I will die, that my body will decompose into its constituent parts, and that those parts will be taken up into later generations of life.  I suppose in a wiggly sort of way this is immortality.
Notvery satisfying, is it?


Nope.  Yet I'm glad I have the opportunity to experience it for at least a little while.

Quote
May be only the body dies.

Anyway, the answers to these questions has been my quest.


The way I see it, if there is an afterlife I'll find out soon enough.  Meanwhile, I find there are plenty of amazing things going on in the sensible parts of the universe to occupy my attention.  To spend my time in distracting myself with unanswerables takes away my ability to be in the now.  It could be that there are gods and an afterlife.  I doubt it, but hey, maybe the Sock Gnome is real.  However, I see no benefit to myself or to any other life on this dazzling planet if I continually strive for that which is always out of reach of the living.  What counts is right here and now.  The afterlife will take care of itself.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,03:07   

Quote
Quote
But back down here on reality-based earth, I realize that I will die, that my body will decompose into its constituent parts, and that those parts will be taken up into later generations of life. I suppose in a wiggly sort of way this is immortality.

Not very satisfying, is it?

I find it quite comforting, and have done ever since I was a child and used to sit in the garden: imagining bits of myself pushing up through the grass as trees and crawling around as insects. The fact that people seek more still puzzles me, and seems to be one of the main reasons in my experience that people are religious other than tradition.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,08:56   

Quote
And all this (pointing out that creationist arguments always founder when you insist on specifics) because I pointed out that a lot of people are disturbed by the problems in paleontolgoy, more perhaps than anything else.
Why, no. You seem to have jumped to that conclusion because that happens to be the most recent request I made for you to substantiate your claims. Seems to me we've gone through a few cycles of your assertions turning out to be baseless when you really get down to the details. Starting with your claims about what Dawkins wrote.
Quote
And you've gone from wanting a list of paleontologists, to just a list of said people.
And here I thought I was doing you a favor; I thought it was you that wanted to expand the scope from Official Paleontologists to scholars of any description who could read the paleontology literature sensibly. Hey, either way is fine with me!
Quote
But I have authors here in my bookcaase that discuss problems with paleontology.
Do you! Who are they?
Quote
What is so special about this "detail"
Nothing at all. That's my point. Every one of your arguments, when you get down to the details, founders.

Quote
...avoiding the details that I have brought up to discuss - such as why do you and others here think that Miller ever really refuted anything that Behe said about the flagellum in his paper the Flagellum Unspun
What details? I believe I pointed out that Behe never made any claims beyond "seems improbable to me" that even could be refuted.
Quote
and what is your reaction to the very specific details that Mike Gene brings out in the assembly and function of the flagellum?
I believe you will find the answer to that if you go back over this thread. But just to summarize: my reaction is "Biological systems are, indeed, complex. Really complex. Really, really complex. But no amount of documenting how really, really, really complex they are gets us any closer to 'couldn't have evolved'". Now, if there's anything that you feel "Mike Gene" wrote that actually argues "couldn't have evolved" - as opposed to "is really complex" - that I failed to address, please: point it out. I certainly don't want to pass up any opportunity to pursue these things right down to the specifics.
Quote
But no, you think you've got brownie points for asking me to come up with names of people who have a problem with paleontology.
Hey, I can take or leave "brownie points". But it is passing strange how much effort you've expended on explaining your not providing these references, because providing them would just be too much effort.

Here's the thing. And correct me if I'm wrong about any assumptions. When you said:
Quote
Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable.
I assumed that you meant that "a lot of people" had concluded from an informed analysis of paleontological data that the basic idea of "evolution" was fundamentally inadequate - that the idea that species evolved from pre-existing species as a result of random genetic change and selection was incompatible with the bones and fossils.

Well, "a lot of people" turns out to be five. On a list you lost. And the only one of them you've supplied a name for is Stephen Jay Gould, whom you have only read as quote(mine)d by creationists. And his issues have nothing to do with those I assumed you were suggesting.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:44   

Chris,

Quote
The weasel program was meant to demonstrate cumulative selection not evolution.
Yes, but without deciding the end result at the beginning, blind forces might never get there.

The whole question of search space is an interesting one, because we may not really know the factors that would help to narrow down the search. When certain evolution detractors have put forth what would appear to be the search space, the possibility of a solution to this or that problem is often quite out of reach, no matter how many e coli you have working for you. Problem is, organizing factors or emergent properties all seem to change the nature of our universe. They all seem to require some fundamental intelligence.

Why do you read several evolutionary papers per week?

Quote
This may be an irreconcilable philosophical difference, sufficed to say any of the laws I described would not be any more proof of this consiouness to me than if they did not exist. Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a god, but I would still need scientific evidence of his involvement in evolution.
Are you familiar with cosmic fine tuning? It's not just a few laws here and there. They say, for example, that the amount of matter in the universe is within one billionth of what it needs to be in order to have a stable universe. That is, the parameters are that narrow. Nature's Destiny by Denton does a good job of explaining a wide array of them.

Quote
Having said that I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a god, but I would still need scientific evidence of his involvement in evolution.
There is no way for God to be omnipotent or omniscient unless God is actually everywhere, and in everything. I think of evolution as an inside job, not one of an external being. It seems to me the evidence is fairly strong that random processes didn't cause this universe, or its laws, or its existence in the first place. What do you think of the information based arguments for ID?

Quote
I had this problem over at UD, the best way to look at it is that random means that the organism does not know which mutations will increase fitness.
It's too bad you guys over there have different names and I am clueless what's going on. It may be that the organism turns on a mutation feature, and in a specific area of the genome, and then suddenly gets the mutation for digesting nylon. For me, that's just too good to be true but we must also account for the organism's ability to direct itself like that in the first place.

Quote
Presumably you mean that we need an evolutionary path for every single system for it to be scientifically acceptable to infer that it did evolve?
I don't think so. Behe complains that there are none in the literature that are really any good. If we had a couple of quite good and plausible routes for some very complex systems to evolve, then the pressure would be off. It wouldn't matter that we couldn't explain each one.
Quote
I would say that modern evolutionary theory certainly does not rule it out.
Saltation?

Quote
(homology flaw)  Why is that a flaw, have I missed something?

I'm referring to the problem that homologous organs often do not arise from the same genes, and that during development, they are often grown from different body segments or in a different order or from a different group of cells. Animal forelimbs develop from different body segments. Homology is difficult because many or most genes control widely divergent body parts. The eye color of drosphila is controlled by a gene th also controls female sex organs. Mouse coat color and mouse size are on the same gene. Chickens are subject to a detrimental mutation in a single gene that causes a wide array of malformations, some of which are unique to birds and others which are shared by other vertebrates.

No only do homologous structures in closely related species arise from different genes, but nonhomologous structures can arise from the same gene.
Quote
This may be true in some cases, but in many cases journals are so eager to publish innovative 'against the grain' work that big name journals can end up publishing bad papers.
I suspect that this greatly depends on just which grains are being rubbed.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:53   

You appear to have responded to some of my points in the gay gene thread:

Quote
Problem is, organizing factors or emergent properties all seem to change the nature of our universe. They all seem to require some fundamental intelligence.
Why?

Quote
Why do you read several evolutionary papers per week?
I am a biologist, I have to read papers. In October I came back of a two week holiday to find something I had been working on for months had been published by someone else, the field moves pretty fast. My works involves the study of complex biological systems, understanding how they evolved is vital for properly analysing them. Plus after reading several arguments by creationists when I first heard this debate, I decided my knowledge of evolutionary biology was lacking. Unlike creationists, I rectify this by reading evolutionar biology papers.

Quote
Are you familiar with cosmic fine tuning?

Quote
There is no way for God to be omnipotent or omniscient unless God is actually everywhere, and in everything.
Fair enough, if this is true we should be able to detect it with more than arguments from ignorance.

Quote
What do you think of the information based arguments for ID?
I find it ironic that complex specified information was originaly defines as exactly what evolution is supposed to create. Do you have anyone other than Dembski in mind, I think his is the only information based argument I have read, and as applying it to biology relies on IC, it amounts to an argument from ignorance.

Quote
It's too bad you guys over there have different names and I am clueless what's going on.
I post under the same name, although not very often, it gets quite frustrating.

Quote
It may be that the organism turns on a mutation feature, and in a specific area of the genome, and then suddenly gets the mutation for digesting nylon.
Does that happen? Im not to up on this, I was under the impression it was to do transposons. In any case Demski says this does not count as gsin of CSI.

Quote
Behe complains that there are none in the literature that are really any good.
Behe also said he requires a list of every single mutation and the time at which each one occured, I dont expect to see that any time soon.

Quote
Saltation?
Yes, it is known that mutations in regulation can produce quite different yet viable phenotpyes, which if selectable may appear as a jump in the fossil record.

Quote
No only do homologous structures in closely related species arise from different genes, but nonhomologous structures can arise from the same gene.
Do you mean different transcription factors activate them in the developmental cycle? I don't see this as a problem I see it as a method of macroevolution.

Quote
Quote
This may be true in some cases, but in many cases journals are so eager to publish innovative 'against the grain' work that big name journals can end up publishing bad papers.

I suspect that this greatly depends on just which grains are being rubbed.
Well the DI maintain a list of 'ID' papers published in peer reviewed journals. I asked an editor from Nature about this and he said they hadn't recieved any submissions describing new research in ID,  and several other people have said the same. The templeton foundation asked the DI for research proposals and recived none, and despite being asked many times what they would do with a research grant, Dembski at least has never come up with an answer. As an example John Davison published a paper in the journal of theoretical biology, it goes over a lot of data and describes a potential mechanism. Im really not sure what ID has that it could publish at this point.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,07:54   

Quote
When certain evolution detractors have put forth what would appear to be the search space, the possibility of a solution to this or that problem is often quite out of reach, no matter how many e coli you have working for you
Citation, please.

Quote
It may be that the organism turns on a mutation feature, and in a specific area of the genome, and then suddenly gets the mutation for digesting nylon. For me, that's just too good to be true but we must also account for the organism's ability to direct itself like that in the first place.
I can't make much sense out of this. Can you state it more clearly? I do get the sense, though, that you're rejecting the simplest explanation - random mutation and selection. Why? What evidence is there for a "mutation feature" in this bug? And what "ability to direct itself like that in the first place" are you talking about?

Quote
Behe complains that there are none in the literature that are really any good. If we had a couple of quite good and plausible routes for some very complex systems to evolve, then the pressure would be off. It wouldn't matter that we couldn't explain each one.
Seems like circular reasoning to me. The "very complex systems" are, by definition, the ones that are very difficult to figure out a likely route. Any system for which a plausible route is offered is defined as not one of the "very complex" ones. And any route that is offered for one of Behe's "very complex" paradigms is dismissed as Behe confuses "plausible" with "likely" with "actual".
Quote
I'm referring to the problem that homologous organs often do not arise from the same genes, and that during development, they are often grown from different body segments or in a different order or from a different group of cells. Animal forelimbs develop from different body segments. Homology is difficult because many or most genes control widely divergent body parts. The eye color of drosphila is controlled by a gene th also controls female sex organs. Mouse coat color and mouse size are on the same gene. Chickens are subject to a detrimental mutation in a single gene that causes a wide array of malformations, some of which are unique to birds and others which are shared by other vertebrates.
Here's a passage that could really benefit from a few specifics to anchor it to reality.

"Homologous organs do not arise from the same genes". Do you envision a "one gene - one organ" hypothesis? What does this refer to?

"Animal forelimbs develop from different body segments." I suppose. What systems are you talking about, and how does that bear on evolution vs. ID?

"Homology is difficult because many or most genes control widely divergent body parts". In what way does that make homology difficult?

"The eye color of drosphila is controlled by a gene th also controls female sex organs." Again, what gene, and what bearing does that have on evolution vs. ID?

"Mouse coat color and mouse size are on the same gene." Well, that's just wrong. Color is controlled by multiple genes, and size is controlled by multiple genes. Maybe one of those genes is in both sets. Which one are you referring to? And, so what?

"Chickens are subject to a detrimental mutation in a single gene that causes a wide array of malformations, some of which are unique to birds and others which are shared by other vertebrates."
Again, what gene, and what bearing does that have on evolution vs. ID?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,07:58   

Jay Ray,

Quote
I remember Newton and some of those wacky taoists became sidetracked down the red herring called alchemy.  This should come as no surprise in modern times.  Anytime we've tried to combine mysticism with science, its failed.  Gee, I wonder why that could be....
Why must people think Newton was the only alchemist? He failed, as did most. Alchemy isn't the queen of science and philosophy for nothing. What do you think mysticism is? Your very sentence contains the supposition that it isn't true. Mysticism is the experience or intuition about things which are very subtle, hard to prove, hard to control, hard to repeat at will. So the question is, have they any truth or not? But if they do have some truth, then they are absolutely within the realm of science. All phenomena are within the realm of science. Alchemy may deal with what you consider mystical phenomena, but it is a matter of scientific experiment, nothing else. Alchemy involves ideas about how nature works.
The idea that science is a separate realm from mysticism or God is a false idea. And luckily, it won't be around much longer.
Quote

I'm familiar and comfortable with the idea that this thing called "me" is an illusion.
Yeah, but all such descriptions are only approximations. Looked at another way, the thing called 'me' is the one and only endurable phenomenon. That is, "I Am."
Quote
What I am really is just a wave in the ocean we know as the universe.  Every wave eventually crashes against the shore, whereupon it takes another form.  I'm cool with that.
This means that the form is not the true essence. The illusion of me or self is mistaking the external compilation for the true essence.

Quote

I do.  How cool would it be to be a wave that rolls up onto the shore and manages to keep on going, maneuvering at will?  It won't happen, but it would be preferable.
Why won't it happen?
Quote

I'd be one of those that wants evidence beyond what can be provided by anecdote.  Channeling doesn't count.  Regression hypnosis doesn't count.  Near death experiences don't count.  In the end, no matter how many of these stories accumulate, they are still all just stories.  
When one of them happens to you, it will count. I haven't paid much attention to channeling or hypnosis, but I am impressed with near death experiences.

Quote
Every moment is interesting, don't you think?
Well, yeah, but dam*  these are interesting times!
Quote
We withhold judgement until the facts are in.  Many of us would welcome these things if they were demonstrated.
Well, there's nothing wrong with that. I suspect it's a developmental stage. It's a way of cleansing out the bullsh*t.
Quote
But so far, the the so-called evidence is anecdotal, vague, contradictory and entirely unpersuasive.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  
What can you expect but anecdotal stories from people who have experienced the invisible (to our senses)? There is a tremendous amount of consistency in near death experiences.
Quote
Deep down, I tend to think that god doesn't exist, in just the same way that I don't believe in the invisible Sock Gnome who lives in my laundry room and steals my socks from time to time.
No, that's the Borrowers!
Quote
Nope.  Yet I'm glad I have the opportunity to experience it for at least a little while.
It's a terrible thing to have one's consciousness snatched away, to be part of this incredible universe and have it fade forever before your eyes. What a cruel, cruel reality we live in. But it is a bit better than the classic Christian one, where most beings are to be tormented horribly forever.
Quote
However, I see no benefit to myself or to any other life on this dazzling planet if I continually strive for that which is always out of reach of the living.
Does anyone reach enlightenment without striving? There is great benefit to others if you strive with the right attitude. Despair and a sense of lack don't benefit, but increasing one's level of consciousness does, since all consciousness is one, and all beings partake of the collective unconscious.
The right attitude is to enjoy the ride and not be impatient about the unfolding of understanding - which I think is pretty much what you said.

Quote
for that which is always out of reach of the living.  
Identify with that which lives, not that which dies. This is the sole doctrine of no-self, or the illusion of self.

Quote
I find it quite comforting, and have done ever since I was a child and used to sit in the garden: imagining bits of myself pushing up through the grass as trees and crawling around as insects. The fact that people seek more still puzzles me, and seems to be one of the main reasons in my experience that people are religious other than tradition.
Comforting and beautiful it is, since this whole big shebang - the universe - is one big writhing process, but loss of consciousness, awareness, being part of it all: this doesn't bother you? I don't doubt your sincerity yet when people say this I cannot quite believe them.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,08:56   

Quote (avocationist @ April 06 2006,11:44)
It may be that the organism turns on a mutation feature, and in a specific area of the genome, and then suddenly gets the mutation for digesting nylon. For me, that's just too good to be true but we must also account for the organism's ability to direct itself like that in the first place.


There is NO EVIDENCE that organisms "turn on a mutation feature" to "direct" themselves in any particular way (e.g., towards an ability to digest nylon). People have looked for that evidence. They haven't found any. (Various people, including reputable scientists, have sometimes thought they'd found such evidence, but it's never panned out.) The reasonable scientific conclusion is that it doesn't work that way!

Quote
I'm referring to the problem that homologous organs often do not arise from the same genes, and that during development, they are often grown from different body segments or in a different order or from a different group of cells. Animal forelimbs develop from different body segments. Homology is difficult because many or most genes control widely divergent body parts.


Perhaps you mean analogous instead of homologous? By definition, homologous structures are those that can be traced to a common ancestor. A human heart and a dog heart are homologous, not because they do the same job, but because they are both derived from the same organ that existed in the last common ancestor of humans and dogs.

I admit I don't know that much developmental genetics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there are some genes involved in human heart development that are different from some genes involved in dog heart development. However, I think a general claim that truly homologous organs "often do not arise from the same genes" is almost certainly wrong.

Quote
No only do homologous structures in closely related species arise from different genes, but nonhomologous structures can arise from the same gene.


I agree with the latter (with the obvious proviso that entire structures do not typically arise from a single gene). I strongly doubt the former, unless you merely mean that there can be some limited discrepancies between the relevant gene sets for the two species.

If you really believe that very different gene sets can give rise to the same homologous organ in closely related species, can you please provide an example? Thanks.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,23:33   

Quote
Why must people think Newton was the only alchemist? He failed, as did most.


I think you mean, as did all.  Also, I'm not sure who thinks Newton was the only alchemist.  Obviously alchemy has a long and dubious history.  Newton just has name recognition.  And his case is illuminating.  All that great work he did with gravity, optics and calculus--clearly he was a man of great genius--and yet he went so far astray in his declining years with his obsession of alchemy.  He may have well turned to astrology for all that came of it.   His descent into alchemy doesn't detract one iota from his other accopmlishments.  But is an important lesson in what can happen if one believes science can be applied to mysticism.  Nothing, except for a waste of a good mind.

Quote
Alchemy isn't the queen of science and philosophy for nothing.


Erm.  This is quite a stretch.  Even before Pythagorus you had guys running around postulating atoms, inferring the general structure of the solar system and planetary orbits, estimating the circumference of the earth.  None of that had anything to do with alchemy.  People were experimenting, rubbing up against what in 2000 years would become that little thing called the scientific method.

Then Pythargorus came along shortly afterward with some excellent math.  Except he really messed things up by turning it into a mystical cult of numbers.  He and his creepy band of fellow mathemystics hoarded their incorrect bizarre extrapolations of the five perfect solids on the grounds that only a select few could handle the inherent power of the information; namely themselves.  In the ensuing centuries, this combination of mysticism and data would broaden its influence into what we know today as western monotheism.  Ptolemy's ideas about the structure of the solar system were stunted by this unfertile soil.  Earth centered universe?  (In a lot of ways, we're still living with this idea.)  And don't get me started on epicycles.

Ring a bell?  How much of humanities potential was wasted by what Pythagorus number cult set into motion?  About a thousand years went by before Kepler, struggling for most of his life with the "perfect solid" nonsense, finally figured it out once and for all.  This despite the stern objections of established authority.  He was afraid for his life.  The mystics had him by the balls.  

Somehow, Newton bought into all this, and it went absolutely nowhere.  Mysticism and knowledge are oil and water.  

Quote
Mysticism is the experience or intuition about things which are very subtle, hard to prove, hard to control, hard to repeat at will.


I'd amend your description: it is so subtle as to be perhaps imaginary, and impossible to prove or repeat.  Nothing mystical has ever been proven.  Controlling isn't in the picture--mysticism is entirely in the mind.

Quote
So the question is, have they any truth or not?


If you mean truth as in, "this is objective reality", then I'd have to say no.  But if you mean truth as in "perception is everything" then I suppose its true for the perceiver.  

Quote
But if they do have some truth, then they are absolutely within the realm of science. All phenomena are within the realm of science.


Depends on the kind of "truth" we are talking about.  And sure, subjectivity can be studied as an objective phenomenon all its own.  We know this kind of science within categories of sociology and psychology.  We see subjective impressions have effects on objective reality all the time.  I proffer the stock market and advertising as prime examples.  

Quote
Alchemy may deal with what you consider mystical phenomena, but it is a matter of scientific experiment, nothing else. Alchemy involves ideas about how nature works.


Alchemy is like Phthagorus' five perfect solids, Ptolemy's geocentricism or the fabled perpetual motion machine.  How many failed attempts does it take to come to the realization that one is on the wrong track?  Basing the study on false premises?

Quote
The idea that science is a separate realm from mysticism or God is a false idea. And luckily, it won't be around much longer.


*sigh*  Maybe we can clone Newton.  Perhaps with all of the latest technology and accumulated data, he will be able to Uncovere that Philosophick Mercury.  And, uh, then what, exactly?

Quote
How cool would it be to be a wave that rolls up onto the shore and manages to keep on going, maneuvering at will?  It won't happen, but it would be preferable.
Why won't it happen?


It might.  If it does, it does.  *shrug*

Quote
When one of them happens to you, it will count. I haven't paid much attention to channeling or hypnosis, but I am impressed with near death experiences.


Once about sixteen years ago, I heard a clear male whisper two words inside my head.  It said, "watch out."  Its the only time in my 36 years that I ever heard a voice in my head.  Does that mean the voice was real?  It happened to me.

Quote
What can you expect but anecdotal stories from people who have experienced the invisible (to our senses)? There is a tremendous amount of consistency in near death experiences.


There is also a tremendous consistancy to alien abduction stories, and going further back into the middle ages, the "little people" stories.  There are better explanations.  Anecdotes make unreliable evidence.

Quote
Deep down, I tend to think that god doesn't exist, in just the same way that I don't believe in the invisible Sock Gnome who lives in my laundry room and steals my socks from time to time.
No, that's the Borrowers!


Gnomeless Heathen!

Quote
There is great benefit to others if you strive with the right attitude. Despair and a sense of lack don't benefit, but increasing one's level of consciousness does, since all consciousness is one, and all beings partake of the collective unconscious.
The right attitude is to enjoy the ride and not be impatient about the unfolding of understanding - which I think is pretty much what you said.


Yup. :)  We certainly agree on this.

Quote
Identify with that which lives, not that which dies. This is the sole doctrine of no-self, or the illusion of self.


I identify with all of it.


EDIT:  It occurs now to me that you might have been joking about the alchemy bit.  Apologies if this is so. :)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,16:23   

Russell,

Quote
I thought it was you that wanted to expand the scope from Official Paleontologists to scholars of any description who could read the paleontology literature sensibly. Hey, either way is fine with me!
Gould was one. And I remember Goldschmidt, no doubt the same one loved by JAD. Also, Colin Patterson.

I've got some quote mines for you. D. Raup and Stanley, Principles of Paleontology, 1978,

"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery; commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional ancestral forms".

White, former president of the Linnean Society,
" Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based on nothing" (credentials not named)

Woodruff, Evolution, The Paleobiological View
"the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition"

T. Huxley, Three lectures on Evolution
"if it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution"

Gould and Simpson,

"New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region."

Simpson,
"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, tha most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."

Raup, Conflicts between Darwinism and Paleontology-
"Paleontology is now looking at what it actually finds,...As is now well known most fossil species appear instantaneiously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly-"

All but one or two were paleontoligists. The rest evolutionary biologists. Evolutionists all, with the possible exceptions of Patterson, who at the least went through a crisis of belief.

Quote
But I have authors here in my bookcaase that discuss problems with paleontology.

Do you! Who are they?
W. R. Bird, Jonathan Wells,  Richard Milton, Michael Denton (Behe?) Lee Spetner, Philip Johnson.

Quote
I believe I pointed out that Behe never made any claims beyond "seems improbable to me" that even could be refuted.
Well, if that is what you took away from his book I don't know what to say.

Quote
and what is your reaction to the very specific details that Mike Gene brings out in the assembly and function of the flagellum?+++++++++++++++
I believe you will find the answer to that if you go back over this thread.
Well, that effort was certainly a waste of time.
Quote
But just to summarize: my reaction is "Biological systems are, indeed, complex. Really complex. Really, really complex. But no amount of documenting how really, really, really  complex they are gets us any closer to 'couldn't have evolved'".
Really? No amount of complexity? Isn't that like saying no evidence could possibly convince you? That there is no limit to the complexity that random and undirected processes could generate?
Quote
Now, if there's anything that you feel "Mike Gene" wrote that actually argues "couldn't have evolved" - as opposed to "is really complex" - that I failed to address, please: point it out. I certainly don't want to pass up any opportunity to pursue these things right down to the specifics.
Well, pretty much what I posted, actually. It's a 5-part essay, and I went through and found what I thought were some of the most interesting parts. You know, on another question, maybe yours, I spent at least 20 hours going through the Flagellum Unspun and Spinning Fine papers, and critiqued it. But no one really got into the nitty gritty of what's there.

Quote
I assumed that you meant that "a lot of people" had concluded from an informed analysis of paleontological data that the basic idea of "evolution" was fundamentally inadequate - that the idea that species evolved from pre-existing species as a result of random genetic change and selection was incompatible with the bones and fossils.

Well, "a lot of people" turns out to be five. On a list you lost. And the only one of them you've supplied a name for is Stephen Jay Gould, whom you have only read as quote(mine)d by creationists. And his issues have nothing to do with those I assumed you were suggesting.
If the quotes are out of context, or misleading, then that's a problem. Simply searching the literature for those moments when evolutionsists have spoken about the problems does not constitute quote mining. I believe when I said a lot of people, at that point I was talking about all of them, from the paleontologists on down to ignorant folk like me.

If you are looking for paleontologists who have gone beyond being troubled and have abandoned belief in evolution, and have publicly said so, the list would probably be only 3 or 4 or 5.
I'm not sure what you think Gould's issues were, but I do believe he found that the fossil record does not support gradualism, and therefore he came up with punctuated equilibrium and isolation of small populations to allow him to accommodate the data.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,17:42   

Geez, Avo. You're like a cartoon of quote-miner. Check out all your favorite quotes, in context, here.

As for this motley crew:
W. R. Bird, Jonathan Wells, Richard Milton, ... Lee Spetner, Philip Johnson.

They have about as much credibility with people who actually know what they're talking about as do Ken Ham and Pat Robertson. Personally, I have zero respect for any of them. I can only guess that they've earned yours by the usual route: supporting a conclusion that you're already committed to, even if the arguments they use to support it are illogical and mutually contradictory. I know. You say potayto, I say potahto. But there's a reason these guys are not part of the ongoing dialog known as science. Can you guess what that might be?

As for Behe and Denton, I thought we decided that they were OK with the standard evolutionists' interpretation of the paleontological record. Have we changed our minds again?

Now, let's get one thing out of the way, once and for all. Your issue is the inadequacy of "random mutation/natural selection" to account for the unity and diversity of life, right? Not the kinetics by which those things occur in biological populations. Right? Go through those mined quotes - in context - and tell me how many of them have anything do do with your issues.

If your problem is "gradualism" vs. "punctuated equilibrium" that's a whole different thing. Darwin's rough approximation to the history of life was a lot closer than his creationist predecessors'. But we've learned quite a bit since then, haven't we? And we've refined our understanding. In light of what we know now about DNA, population genetics, environmental metastability, etc. etc. why would you think that a punctuated equilibrium pattern is at all inconsistent with good ol' RM/NS? Gould certainly didn't.

As for "sudden appearance" of species - remember, we're talking "sudden" on a geological time scale. Read Gould on this. (Not just the mined quotes.)

So at this point, I regard your "list" as the null set - until such time as you show your skeptics have anything to say about the inadequacy of RM/NS or the need to invoke intelligent design.

As for Behe's Irreducible Complexity scam, read the current post on Panda's Thumb about evolution of hormone-receptor complexity. If that doesn't explain what I mean by the difference between "really really complex" and "irreducibly complex", I can't help you.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,19:06   

Chris,
Quote
You appear to have responded to some of my points in the gay gene thread:
Disconcerting, wasn't it?

You ask why emergent order of some kind changes the nature of the universe. I guess it all comes down to what we find. But the fine tuning that seems to be turning up just makes this universe a more and more fantastic place. It begins to take more credulity to suppose pure materialism than to suppose consciousness precedes matter, or perhaps that they operate together.
Quote
Fair enough, if this is true we should be able to detect it with more than arguments from ignorance.
From the IDEA site: intelligent design theory is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
Quote
Do you have anyone other than Dembski in mind, I think his is the only information based argument I have read, and as applying it to biology relies on IC, it amounts to an argument from ignorance.
I believe the phrase CSI is his, but others have argued the same or similar points. He was not the first. At least, I don't think he was. I should dig up some. Let me think.

Here is Meyer:

"Experience teaches that information-rich systems invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology has artificially limited its explanatory search to the naturalistic nodes of causation chance and necessity. Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause.

"Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."
Quote
Fair enough, if this is true we should be able to detect it with more than arguments from ignorance.
We should have infinite patience for the unknown and unsolved if it relates to NDE, but we should have no patience at all for anything that ID theory has failed to answer up front. Darwin's argument for natural selection was an argument from ignorance, because he was so utterly ignorant of what he was dealing with. So a kid could make up a fairy tale, and that is positive, but if someone says the fairy tale events could not be true, why, it is an argument from ignorance, and incredulity too. And it's negative.

Meyer on the argument from ignorance accusation:

   Well, Chris, (wasn't you was it?) all scientific theories are based on inferences from evidence. If we could see everything directly, we wouldnt need to theorize. And Darwins theory is in fact an inference from a number of different classes of evidence. And Darwin justified the theory not because he could make observable predictions in the laboratory after all he was trying to reconstruct the distant past instead he justified it because it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and thats precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified. We argue that our theory provides a better explanation of some of the critical pieces of evidence of biology, namely the irreducibly complex molecular machines and circuits that we seen in cells and the presence of this informational software that drives everything in the cell as its embedded in the DNA molecule.
   ...
   ...
   Well, what youre getting at is that our argument is an argument from ignorance, but its not an argument from ignorance, its based on the evidence that has been discovered of the complexity in the cell, the information-bearing properties in particular, but its also based on what we know about it takes to build informational systems. That in our experience, our repeated and uniform experience, intelligence is always involved in the production of information. So when we find information in the living system, the most natural inference to draw is that there was an intelligent source. Now that form of reasoning happens to be precisely the form of reasoning that is always used in the historical sciences, where our present knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world guides our judgment as to what is the most likely explanation of what happened in the past.

Quote
Does that happen? Im not to up on this, I was under the impression it was to do transposons. In any case Demski says this does not count as gsin of CSI.

I'll need to look into it more because someone else has said there's no evidence for it, and I have run into articles about it more than once, but I'll have to see if they were right. But that was my understanding. I'm not sure what you mean about doing transposons. Genetic shuffling during meiosis? It was not meant as an argument for CSI, just as something pretty impressive, hard to imagine it evolving via luck.

Try this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/sri-tse051805.php
Quote
Behe also said he requires a list of every single mutation and the time at which each one occured, I dont expect to see that any time soon.
Did he really? Because I was not aware of that, and it isn't what I recall reading.
Quote
Yes, it is known that mutations in regulation can produce quite different yet viable phenotpyes, which if selectable may appear as a jump in the fossil record.
What is a mutation in regulation?
Quote
Do you mean different transcription factors activate them in the developmental cycle?
I'm not sure. Wells gives the example of a gene called Distal-less that is involved in generating appendages in 5 phyla (mouse, worm, butterfly, sea urchin and spiny worm) but the structures are not homologous. He also says that gene transplant experiments show that developmental genes from mice and humans can replace their counterparts in flies.  So this indicates that genes do not control structure, but something else.
He quotes Gavin de Beer: "Because homology implies community of descent from...a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would proovide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered...[because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous...[and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes."

Says the Crevo guy: If homologies are continually found outside the expected evolutionary tree, then it can't be said that homologies provide evidence for evolution.

and
Quote
But first, let's take note of why evolutionists don't think that convergent evolution is a problem for them. They believe that there are perfectly valid explanations other than evolution for homology. The main one they point to is environmental selective pressures which select the same mutations across two lineages. There are a number of problems with this stance:

   * If evolutionists agree that there are other possibilities for the origin of homologies than common descent, then they should also agree with us that this makes the use of homologies as evidence of common descent null and void, since homology can be just as much evidence of other mechanisms.
   * The idea that the same set of beneficial mutations can occur randomly twice is astronomically low. First of all, the chances of getting one beneficial mutation is astronomically low. The chances of finding a sequence from point A to point B with all containing beneficial or at least non-lethal configurations is astronomically low. The chances of two different organisms finding the same configuration from the same random space is even more astronomically low.

Quote
As an example John Davison published a paper in the journal of theoretical biology, it goes over a lot of data and describes a potential mechanism. Im really not sure what ID has that it could publish at this point.
I think it is not quite the case that there have been no research proposals or papers, but it isn't a serious drawback for me. One thing is that they may come. Another is that ID is just another supposition like Darwinism, but in the real world, research will go on just the same. Same data, different spin.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,01:31   

Quote
From the IDEA site: intelligent design theory is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
Great, what are these predictions?

Quote
Darwin's argument for natural selection was an argument from ignorance, because he was so utterly ignorant of what he was dealing with.
If we were having this discussion in the 1800s I would not ask for the same evidence as I do now. The same way if Darwin was working today the proof he gave in Origin would not be sufficient to convince most people.

Quote
And Darwins theory is in fact an inference from a number of different classes of evidence. And Darwin justified the theory not because he could make observable predictions in the laboratory after all he was trying to reconstruct the distant past instead he justified it because it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and thats precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified.
I never said that ID wasn't an inference from evidence, I said it was an argument from ignorance. Do you have a link to an explanation of how it explains the evidence better than evolution that isn't some variation of: we don't know how it evolved, therefore 'it was designed' explains it better.

Quote
Well, what youre getting at is that our argument is an argument from ignorance, but its not an argument from ignorance, its based on the evidence that has been discovered of the complexity in the cell, the information-bearing properties in particular, but its also based on what we know about it takes to build informational systems.
Apologies as information theory is not my strong point, but do we have examples of infomational systems that are not either organisms or machines built by humans. There may be arguments for ID that I haven't seen, but CSI as it is currently calculated for the falgellum is an argument from ignorace so long as it is based on IC and the assumption that the only possible evolutionary pathway is all of the genes spontaneously appearing.

Quote
We should have infinite patience for the unknown and unsolved if it relates to NDE, but we should have no patience at all for anything that ID theory has failed to answer up front.
I would have patience, except for the fact that ID advocates claim that they have produced the evidence to dismiss evolution and accept design, so I think what I ask for is not too great. If they said what they have is a hypothesis and a work in progress, then I would ask for less evidence based on the claim.

Quote
Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
Quote
it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and thats precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified.
Combine these two and you could make some interesting predictions, so far I haven't seen many.

Quote
Did he really? Because I was not aware of that, and it isn't what I recall reading.
He also said that each mutation needs a 'fitness coefficient' so we know how natural selection was able to operate on it.

Quote
What is a mutation in regulation?
The developmental cycle is contolled by a network of transcription factors (eg the Hox genes) which control the time ordered tissue specific gene expression which creates all the different cells in the right order. Because transcription factors bind to short promoter stretches of DNA mutations not only cause loss of binding, but also binding of transcription factors to new random sequences. Random rearrangement of DNA binding domains in transcription factor proteins themselves can create novel binding properties. Changes in how this network is wired can cause significant chages in phenotype, for example a change in the expression of certain hormones may cause larger brains in humans comapred to other primates. Also, because of phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation, different genotypes can produce different phenotypes in response to environmental stimulation, which can be eventually translated into genotype.

Because of this we would not expect body plan development to be controlled the same way, as this is likely the main cause of change in body plans. We cannot just look at individual genes for homology, we need to look at the structure of the network as a whole.

Quote
I think it is not quite the case that there have been no research proposals or papers, but it isn't a serious drawback for me.
Again if they are saying that this is a work in progress then it is not a problem, and some people are starting to talk that way now. It is a problem if the claim if all the data they have proves ID, and it is already enough to dismiss Darwinism, and there has been no published research. It is also relevent when complaining they are being kept out of the literature, which is what I think the original point was.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,09:06   

Quote
Here is Meyer:

"Experience teaches that information-rich systems invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology has artificially limited its explanatory search to the naturalistic nodes of causation chance and necessity. Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause.

"Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

These are some very strong statements. Completely wrong, in my opinion, and maybe I'll have time soon to get into it. But for the present, I'd like to point out that in 14 or so pages, we seem to have made no progrees on what was one of the central points of contention early in the thread: your argument is largely one of incredulity toward the accounts of mainstream biologists that contradict your received notions about the universe, yet you seem completely credulous toward extremely questionable assertions from second-rate philosophers and apologists like Meyer.
It's fine to be skeptical about appeals to authority and the claims of so-called experts. But when it doesn't cut both ways, it begins to look like your mind is utterly made up, and in your mind no ID proponent can ever be wrong.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,09:50   

This whole argument about the conservation of information, or that evolution cannot increase information is just full of sh**.

Life as nothing to do with information intrinsically, because information is only relevant to an observer. It doesn't mean anything on its own. I've never seen any biology textbook discussing information.

You have several identical replicators. A mutation occures in of them, which increases its replication rate. Therefore this mutation is selected. If the increase depends on the environment, this can lead to different types of replicators.
Wether that increases or decreases information entropy or whatever is just intellectual masturbation of pseudo-scientists like Dembski in order to fool the ignorant or the skeptic.
Needless to say that none of them has been able to point a specific evolutionnary process that should be impossible, according to their law of 'conservation of information'.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:13   

Intelligent Design theory specifically states that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum without intelligent input is impossible because the probability that every protein would form simeltaneously as a random combination of amino acids, along with the correct expression and arrangement mechanisms in place, is less than the universal probability bound. Have you not read No Free Lunch?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:36   

Quote

From the IDEA site: intelligent design theory is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.
What are these predictions besides "things are expected to look designed"? And most important, what predictions does ID make that can falsify its hypothesis? Can it predict things that cannot have been designed?
And don't you understand that the argument of comparison cannot scientific? Following such comparison, every ecosystem, snowflake, planet... must have be specifically designed. Do you think that plate tectonics was designed?
Quote
Darwin's argument for natural selection was an argument from ignorance, because he was so utterly ignorant of what he was dealing with.

WHAT? Have you read his book?
When the current theory about the origin of species was just "poof" (like ID), do you think that a verbal model based on evidence and able to produce predictions was an argument from ignorance?
Quote

Darwin justified the theory not because he could make observable predictions in the laboratory after all he was trying to reconstruct the distant past instead he justified it because it provided a better explanation of the evidenced than the main competitor hypothesis, and thats precisely how the theory of intelligent design is formed, framed, and justified.
In which way is ID different from the old argument from Paley?
I'm sorry, CSI and IC don't constitute a theory, they don't explain why things are what they are, unless you're satisfied with "poof".
Quote

We argue that our theory provides a better explanation of some of the critical pieces of evidence of biology, namely the irreducibly complex molecular machines and circuits that we seen in cells and the presence of this informational software that drives everything in the cell as its embedded in the DNA molecule.
This argument from comparison is useless, see above. And BTW, the genome is not a program. Is was not written before its execution, and the the genetic code is part of the genome (as if the programming language was part of the program).
Quote
Genetic shuffling during meiosis? It was not meant as an argument for CSI, just as something pretty impressive, hard to imagine it evolving via luck.
Crossing-overs happen when two homologous chromosomes are close to each other. What is impressive here?
Quote

"Because homology implies community of descent from...a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would proovide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered...[because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous...[and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes."
A gene is not a phenotype. If you change its environment, the same gene can produce very different traits. A gene alone is meaningless, this is just a random string of symbols. Nothing in the gene for insulin says 'this is gene for a 7 amino acid peptide designed for the regulation of glycemy'... nothing.
Quote

* If evolutionists agree that there are other possibilities for the origin of homologies than common descent, then they should also agree with us that this makes the use of homologies as evidence of common descent null and void, since homology can be just as much evidence of other mechanisms.
There is a term for homologies that are not inherited from a common ancestor. These are called 'homoplasies' and have been a parameter in phylogenetics for decades.
Quote

* The idea that the same set of beneficial mutations can occur randomly twice is astronomically low.
Who said that an homoplasy should be caused by the same set of mutations in two lineages? Do you think that wing developments in birds and bats are based on the same mutations?
Quote

First of all, the chances of getting one beneficial mutation is astronomically low.

Every drug resistance, adaptation to abiotic stress... that have been observed in the lab and in the wild are the results of beneficial mutations.
Quote

The chances of finding a sequence from point A to point B with all containing beneficial or at least non-lethal configurations is astronomically low.

This calculation is flawed because the mutations don't have to happen simultaneously or to follow a singe pathway. Anf most important mutations don't have any direction to follow. '... to point B' is just meaningless. I know you consider yourself as the product of a purpose, but I'm afraid you are not.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:40   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 11 2006,16:13)
Intelligent Design theory specifically states that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum without intelligent input is impossible because the probability that every protein would form simeltaneously as a random combination of amino acids, along with the correct expression and arrangement mechanisms in place, is less than the universal probability bound. Have you not read No Free Lunch?

I was referring to their blurry arguments regarding the conservation information, not IC.
I will edit my post to make that clear.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:58   

Quote
[avo:] Darwin's argument for natural selection was an argument from ignorance, because he was so utterly ignorant of what he was dealing with.
Quote
[a dumbfounded Jeannot:] WHAT? Have you read his book?
Probably not. But she's read all the important parts, as quote-mined by creationists!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:29   

Quote
I was referring to their blurry arguments regarding the conservation information, not IC.
I will edit my post to make that clear.
Don't worry I was being sarcastic, but that is how Dembski calculates the probabilty in NFL.

  
  390 replies since Feb. 07 2006,05:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]