intellegent design is not a scientific theory

[steen]

There are two distinct parts to the ID argument. They point to certain structural coincidences that could not have come about by any known natural process. They then claim this means that God did it.

Your criticism is (rightly) aimed at the second part, but thereby you do not dismiss the first.

Actually, you are in error. The ID argument, as I provided it was: "(1) I can't imagine this happened naturally, (2) it MUST have been designed." #1 clearly addresses the first part. Hence, you are in error.

The problem is that people think in binary terms about the issue--i.e. if it couldn't have happened by a known physical process, then it must have been supernatural.

Ah, but that also means that they ARE claiming it couldn't have happened naturally. Just as I pointed out, and in the face of evidence.

I say, nonsense, on both sides.[/quote[]Talk is cheap. What is "nonsense" about the science?

IDers have gained a lot of political ground which has evolutionists hastily trying to explain things in terms of known physical processes.

What are 'evolutionists"? And what is it they are "hastily trying to explain"? Are you talking about the scientific evidence that have been provided steadily as the reserahc has been done? Your attempt at portraying this as scrambling in the face of ID is patently false.

We know of a number of physical processes now that we did not know 100 years ago; it stands to reason that there are surely some processes we don't know now. So this is the way to attack the IDer.

Well, their claim is not science. Claiming "it is like this BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE OTEHRWISE," is not science, it is fantasy, it is wishful thinking. We couldn't care less if ID is taught, as long as it isn't in a science class-room, where the subjects are those generated throguh the Scientific Method. That is the point. If somebody feel the kids need to be taught ID, that the world is flat, that it once was entirely flooded, they can do so in comparative religion or myth classes all you want. The issue is that ID is misrepresenting itself as science when it is not, when it merely is creationism with a new coat of paint.

But at the same time, denying that the intuition that is behind their central point is ludicrous, and is just as politically motivated, it appears to me.

Huh? This doesn't make sense as I read it. Could you clarify?

 

[Ausonius]

The game is over. In the District Court action, Professor Michael Behe appeared as an expert witness for the defendant school district, and his testimony in support of Intelligent Design based on “irreducible complexity” was found to be refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and rejected by the scientific community. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al., v. Dover Area School District (Case No. 04cv2688), Memorandum Opinion, at pp. 73-79. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that Intelligent Design was not supported by any scientific evidence; and when pressed on the point of reconciling Intelligent Design with the evidence of biological systems, he could only respond that “the inference still works in science fiction movies.” Id., at p. 81. Intelligent Design has been completely debunked, and its advocates discredited. Professor Behe is a charlatan; and his works are - by his own admission - on a par with astrology.

 

[justone]

I'll take some guesses:


Thanks for the exercise in thinking. Being critical is essential to both science and society. I might have missed some things, and I probably left some things open to new questions. But the more the merrier. I had trouble with some of these, and I think there's a lot more hypothesizing to be done.

You did a lot more than I expected from anybody. Most of your answers were a kind of coming to me when I was writing the questions, but frankly I could not evaluate MY answers, and I was not convinced by MY answers. Of course you ''opened a can of worms'' but I don't feel l I would like to continue in this direction. The questions have been posted, and anybody is welcome to exercise critical thinking. You answers also would be very useful for anybody who wants to make some conclusions. I generally did not exactly intended to criticize the science I had not really studied in any extend. I was reading the text and the questions started popping in my mind. I found they could be interesting for some other people besides myself..

 

[steen]

It is, as it happens.

So your criticism is of all science, then. All science is unreliable, then!

And this is part of the issue. When you talk to a proponent of neo-darwinism, the actual mechanisms that cause the needed mutations should be entirely random; the randomness is then 'culled' by natural selection. But in fact, mutations are not as random as those mechanisms would make them; why this is the case remains unknown. And that's part of my point.

Again, who are these “neo-darwinists”? Certainly in the scientific field, no such requirement is inherent.

Just to be clear: we're talking about any sort of mutation, period--not their subsequent survivability or any conference of advantage. If so, then you've admitted something that I think means you must agree with

me.

I am agreeing THAT for ALL mutations, the process is not random, yes. Mutations tend to appear time after time. Many of our genetic diseases are only partly inherited, and is as likely to be new mutations, and generally happen in the same 2-3 ways each time. There definitely is a pattern in Mutations, incl. per where in the DNA it occurs etc.

No! Think carefully: what we have are a series of steps in nature. It is an assertion that "each" step of all necessary steps are known in nature--we don't and can't know what all the necessary steps are. So that assertion is baseless.

Every intermediary of the eye that you can imagine as necessary in order to show that the path of evolution of the eye is necessary, is found in nature. Please come up with an intermediary step in the evolution of the eye that you find as necessary and which does not already occur in nature, why don’t you. No? THAT is what I mean.

Yes, all of which is more evidence for my case. In fact, even if we say that only the physical facts about optics were the necessary controlling factor, that's one example of exactly what I'm talking about. Optics have nothing per se to do with genetics. And although this seems rather hum-drum, we could find some more startling examples (see my remarks about the squirrels, below).

Actually, genetic changes leads to optic changes that are advantageous and then get promoted in the population.

Then why are there people who need corrective lenses?

Because there are multiple different versions of the genes in the population. If we were still subject to natural selection, those with the poor eyes were less likely to success and make it to adulthood under natural conditions. There would be a lot less people with poor vision around under that condition. You cannot use humans over the last couple thousand years as arguments relating to Natural Selection, as no such thing has occurred over this time.

Brains are programmable to a degree, but not that much. Human beings born with radically misshappen lenses don't necessarily have brains that compensate and are put at a comparative disadvantage.

I am NOT saying they would get perfect sight. I am saying that the brain would adjust for the optimum use of the eyes in whatever condition they are in. You don’t need a genetic change that yields an optimal eye. You just need one that gives an individual eyesight that is better than others in that population.

It's easy to imagine that some of the first creatures to have had lenses, were they not good lenses, would have been at a disadvantage.

Not if the rest of the population did not have lenses.

But they'd not have passed on that mutation if that were the case; ergo, the first lenses were good, which means they fell within a fairly narrow range of shapes; it also means that the brains of the animals in question were equipped with exactly the necessary corresponding mutations.

Your argument is false as is your logic. A lens vs. no lens gives advantage to the one with the lens as I explained in my post. It appears that you are ignoring what I write, which is rather insulting. Are you that dishonest? Else, go back and read what I wrote.

IIRC, lenses have significantly more keratin than corneal tissue.

CURRENT lenses do. That doesn’t mean that the first lens would have. You are again trying to make comparisons with structures as we have them today. That is dishonest or ignorant.

If you'd like to enter into a discussion of histo-and-organo-genesis, this bit gets pretty interesting.

Certainly. A collagen lens vs. no lens at all. Which is best? And over time, do you find it impossible that mutations could not cause changes in the collagen lens to structure more keratin into it?

That wasn't what was under discussion. Scientific theories are not necessarily the most parsimonious of competing explanations, therefore making an appeal to parsimony to defend science is a little disingenuous.

Ah, but trying to use Occam’s Razor in science to include non-scientific stories is highly dishonest as well. That was ALSO explained in my post, which you obviously didn’t read.

If you are just here to proselytize your claims with no regard for arguments arising from this, then what the hell is the purpose of our communication? If you truly are THAT dishonest, then you can stuff it.

No, they're not the same thing at all. In fact, I'd say that all one can really see is light.

And your claim is false. You can not see light as it is emitted from its source, you can only see its reflection, which according to you must mean that it really isn’t showed to exist.

It's clear that we can see objects that emit light, so the examples aren't congruous.

We don’t see the light source itself. Do you really want to get into a discussion of physics here?

So long as inference does not count as evidence, then we couldn't say that gravity exists either.

yes, that is the level of silliness your argument has to resort to, to justify your argument. If Evolution doesn’t exist, nor does gravity. Yeah, good one.

1) Which doesn't change the fact that we infer gravity from what we observe.

As is the case with Natural Selection, Evolution and so on. An argument you SPECIFICALLY rejected before. So where you lying then, or are you lying now? Or were you just not very good at expressing what the heck you meant because you were entangled in your own sophistry? (To be Continued)

 

[steen]

(continued)

2) There was a time when the outcomes were not predictable, because we lacked the necessary knowledge to make predictions.

And that is not true now for either Natural Selection/Evolution or Gravity. Hence, they are now evidenced to the level of a Scientific Theory rather than Scientific Models or Scientific Hypotheses.

My beef in all of this is that a neo-darwinist

Who are they?

will often try to hedge against an IDer by claiming evidence for natural selection,

Certainly. The evidence is solid enough to justify the formulation of the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

while at the same time denying that inference is sufficient to support the notion of a creator. That tactic is illegitimate.

Of course it is LEGITIMATE. There is no evidence for a creator. List one. No?

Only that observed changes in the in-vivo environment for an embryo can lead to significant formal changes in the viable organism in a single generation; this was one of Gould's central points.

Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. So I am still not sure what it is you claim the implication is. And if I was you, I would stay away from Gould’s pop-science. It might be good for giving good overview to those who have no fore-knowledge, but it is not particularly specific or accurate science.

Below a certain threshold, that is no longer the case, simply due to tissue elasticity.

Because you say so?

You mean, the squirrel and the source of its nuts?

yes.

Within a certain range, you are correct, but consider how a neo-darwinist would explain this

Why should I care. I am not even sure who these “neo-darwinists” are. I don’t care how people explain it. I care what the scientific evidence says.

--the invagination would start out as a very small indentation in the cheeks of the squirrel. No matter how small a nut gets, that confers no advantage.

And why would this have to be a gradual change. Some genetic changes result in huge changes. The single VOX gene mutation, f.ex. has been documented to result in a change from 6 to 4 legs. All you need is a gene that knocks out the 3rd strand of collagen. f.ex. And all it would have to do would be for the squirrel to be able to carry one nut easier than the other squirrels.

Yes, mutations are ongoing. I never denied that. Nor have I (or will I) deny that ongoing gradual changes is one of the mechanisms of evolution--it clearly is. But I do not believe it is the only mechanism, which is what a neo-darwinist would argue.

OK, go tell that to a neo-darwinist. The reality is that we have not found other mechanisms yet, and that we are able to explain current findings with the current data. So why would we need to look for anything else, of supernatural nature. Because certainly, with 150 years of research that solidly explains the changes we have observed, why would there have to be another cause. What is it that you have observed that necessitates another mechanism? Do you have any reason for this belief other than that you WANT there to be something else? When you are rejecting current science, are you sure you know what actual science is saying. You come across as having gained most of your knowledge through arguments with others, not from the actual science. You keep talking about what “neo-darwinists say,” not what the science shows.

Well, we know of species that evolved in the same environment but were both descended from a third organism that also survived (e.g. homo habillis and some of the great apes). So while this is certainly how some speciation occurs, this isn't the story we need to tell about all of them.

It is not clear WHAT you are claiming here. Certainly, the apes and H. habilis did not live in the same environment. Could you clarify your claim? It seems outright bogus, a lame avoidance of my point.

And no, I didn’t say that all species evolved in that fashion. Certainly, the nylon bacteria evolved in the same pool as the progenitor, it just had a mutation that allowed it to access a new food available in that environment.. I am pointing out that lame creationist liars say that this process is impossible.

The inference, given what I posted above, is that they did happen to change in one or no more than a few generations, and that they were therefore able to take advantage of new food sources (or the same food source in a more efficient way).

And now I need a scientific reference for that claim.

The point that this misses is that each stage in the gradual change scenario also needed to have conferred a survival advantage. The initial stages of a gradual invagination would not have done so.

you don’t have to be good at carrying nuts, you only have to be better than your neighbor. So that’s bogus.

This was actually in reference to an experiment performed by someone (not Gould--he was just commenting on it, but I don't recall who as I learned about it from reading one of his lectures) in a lab, not something observed in the natural environment.

Do you have a scientific source, or just a re-telling of Gould’s re-telling?

See above.

More dodge. I can understand that you refuse to deal with my comments to your claims, but can’t you at least be honest about it? So far, all you have used for reply is sophistry and unsubstantiated claims.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's an inference. So long as inference counts as evidence, then the IDer has a point, though the proper inference is not to an intelligent creator, but rather to some set of laws we don't know yet.

Ah, so even though we have explained gravity, we can’t accept it exists because it might still be that Goddidit, or something else did it? Ignoring that all experiments conducted are confirming its existence and its fixed force proportion?

That’s sophistry. Back to Plato’s cave and the Electric Ant. Back to you having to resort to arguments essentially telling us that just because we can see and observe something doesn’t mean that it exists. You have watched “The Matrix” one to many times. Fantasy and what-if philosophy is no the real world.

This is far from certain.

It is as certain as any other scientific result. It is certain enough that it provides accurate predictions of changes, it is accurate enough that we can base medical and biological science on it. It is certain enough to the point where we have not seen any evidence disproving it. Now, either you provide some evidence or start admitting that all you are doing here is spewing sophistic philosophy with no foundation in reality.

 

[steen]

(continued)

This is a very confused account of the philosophy in question; I'll try briefly to untangle it:

1) Plato has little if anything to do with what I'm talking about. My point re: inference would have much more to do with Aristotle who said that we do not observe forms outside their manifestations. Plato thought that there was some ideal "whiteness" existing in a heaven of forms, whereas Aristotle thought that there were simply a bunch of white things.

Irrelevant. Both were arguing about how the real world exists outside of our perceived reality, which is the same idea that “The Matrix” was trying to push. What you are trying to claim is that what we can observe, measure, and confirm in repeated experiments might be a figment of our imagination. Yes, that is always a possibility. LIKE in “the matrix.” Like in Plato’s talk about the prisoners in the cave. That is the ONLY thing you have right now, so that’s nothing but philosophy, nothing but sophistry.

If you want to discuss the philosophy of what if the real world doesn’t exist, then go and discuss delusions and hallucinations somewhere else, because I am not interested.

2) Cogito Ergo Sum is no guarantor that what we observe must exist. Even Descartes didn't think so.

Irrelevant blathering.

3) Yes, everything could be one big hallucination; Kant had a pretty good reply to this, though.

in which case EVERYTHING is a fiction, and your attempt at comparing science and ID therefore would be bogus. Where you dishonest then or are you dishonest now?

That’s the problem with sophistry, sooner or later you end up contradicting yourself because you are basing your argument on what-ifs rather than reality.

So long as inference is out, natural selection may as well be supernatural...

And gravity is a figment of your imagination and it is supernatural, invisible angles flying around and keeping everything in place. Well, it COULD be, right? SO any position is meaningless, again proving the dishonesty of your then arguments of comparing and contrasting ID and science.

Yeah, I know what it is you are trying to say. If you have anything FACTUAL to contribute, have at it. I don’t play sophistry, though.

In other words, you've made inference to an unobservable entity, but claimed that predictability is a guarantor of truth. Confused, at best.

You are dishonest. I am pointing out that we make an observation of repeated and constant outcomes of events that are predictable and constant, and that it thus becomes a fact in our observable reality. That YOU are confused between “what-if philosophical fantasy and direct observation, that is not my fault. Go peddle your sophistry elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer scientific models, but calling in Occam's razor to defend evolution against a creationist account is not correct.

As creationism is a fantasy already proven false per evidence, Occam’s razor doesn’t even enter the picture. Occam’s razor is used to distinguish between possible causes of observable evens for which there is potential evidence of both causes. When one claimed cause is already proven a lie, the Occam’s razor is irrelevant. You don’t need it. One side lied, their claims are discarded accordingly.

Actually, you can, and people have been doing it for thousands of years. It is one of the principle changes that occurred during the axial age.

And people have been saying so per speculation with no scientific evidence to back it up. You are again misrepresenting science here, again comparing “only a theory” with “Scientific Theory.” Such attempt at equalizing the two is inherently dishonest.

The mistake in that thinking is that there are supernatural things to begin with. There is actually quite a body of scientific literature on things supposed to be supernatural; I don't think they're supernatural at all.

”supposed to” What mealy-mouthed copout is this?

No, Natural Selection is established through inference, not observation.

False. NS is the process of generational change to a better fit to the environment. It is observed, your claim is sophistry.

So is gravity. Can God be established through inference? Well, depends on what one means by "God," but in any case I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

God as a supernatural entity can not be established through inference because you have no facts to infer from, no repetitive outcome, no evidence at all. Your claim is false.

What can be established by inference is that natural selection alone could not solely be responsible for some aspects of life that we observe.

In connection with genetic mutations, it very much can. Do you have evidence to the contrary? What is it that can not have happened? Back to the ID argument of “I can’t imagine, in my ignorance” that this occurred naturally.”

Either through testing or through collaboration with other labs also doing testing. I'm aware it's an ongoing process; but this isn't outside what I posted.

It DOES fit gravity, Natural Selection and Evolution. It does NOT fit God.

The way the term is typically used, a theory just is a model or a conglomeration of models. Laws are categorically different.

I am using the scientific terminology. The only difference between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific law is how involved it is. If it is a simple and consistent mathematical relationship, then the Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Model becomes a Scientific Law. If it is more involved and the Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Model end up covering complex interactions on many levels, then it becomes a Scientific Theory. YOUR claim shows a serious ignorance of Science and of the Scientific Method, as there is no “categorical” difference

Yes, but he didn't do the testing, at least not via experimentation. He realized the full logical implications of Minkowski's metric and published them.

Which is still a Scientific Hypothesis, not a Scientific Theory or Scientific Law.

This account is at variance with what any number of scientists might tell you.

Not if they are specific and detailed, no it isn’t.

So you're just showing my point. There is no one all-inclusive scientific method.

yes, there is, your claim is false.

There are philosophical principles to which science tends to adhere. Enshrining the notion that there is a single method which has been applied to all accepted theories or laws is false.

The Scientific Method is a process of verification of the accuracy of data. This verification happens for every set of data that becomes part of a Scientific Theory or a Scientific law. Your claim is false.

You don't need a better explanation. You just need an explanation that has exactly the same observational consequences; we pick among them by convention.

False. The explanation that fits all the data and provides the best. most straight-forward explanation is the final explanation.

For instance, we now prefer Reimannian geometry as the geometry that describes the universe, but a competing theory would be Euclidian geometry plus forces that make light rays bend in Reimannian manner. There is no way to distinguish between the two; nor is calculation in one model easier than in the other. We picked Reimannian geometry conventionally; but the two theories are clearly at odds and entail a different ontology.

Please document this claim. I don’t delve much into geometry or the shape of the universe. You have to provide a lot more explanation before I can accept your claim.

Quine's point in conjunction with Pierre Duhem, and I daresay they proved it (that's not a word I use very often), is that for any Theory (or model, if you prefer) T, there is a Theory T' that entails a different ontology but which nevertheless has exactly the same observational consequences. In other words, they both fit all the data, and are yet competing theories.

Ah, so you are back in philosophy and what-ifs. How nice for you. Prove it, show an example. No? Oh, it is all hypothetical? DUH!

Basically, it's Darwinism that prefers genetic evidence over cladistic evidence. Most evolutionists today are neo-darwinists.

That still doesn’t make sense, because the only thing that makes sense per the term “Darwinism” is some kind of adherence to Darwin’s original Scientific Hypothesis. And that is as irrelevant today as the Wright Brothers are to Space Shuttle design.

There is no “Darwinism.” There is the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Is that what you are referring to so inaccurately here?

 

[steen]

(continued)

I could have said a googleplex and it wouldn't matter; for the purposes of comparison, the same number of changes are needed. So pick whatever number you like.

Comparison between what?

Well, clearly, mutations occur today that do not result in speciation, and that in fact disappear within a generation or two. Surely you don't want to say that's a recent phenomenon?

Of course not. That merely means that it is not a mutation that took. Lots of other mutations have, so it still doesn’t justify or prove your original claim of “So, because of the uniqueness of each instance, we need as many entities as there have been mutations. We need not only all those mutations that worked, but all those that did not if we are to explain the evidence of genetics today.”

So again, I must ask WHY?

You were correct until the last sentence. Creationism does fit all the evidence.

Actually, that is a lie. Creationist “facts” are directly disproved by evidence, so no it doesn’t fit.

But you are correct, the flaw is that it's not a scientific theory.

And as such, Occam’s razor is irrelevant. I'm not a creationist except perhaps in some remote sense that has little to do with what we're discussing.

The point is that an appeal to parsimony doesn't save neo-Darwinism.

Irrelevant, as “neo-darwinism” obviously, as you use it, is not the same as the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Whatever knock-off group you are talking about has no relevance to the actual science.

It can be shown to be superior to most types of creationism pretty easily though by appeal to its explanatory scope.

”most types of creationism”? No creationism has scientific backing for its claim. So that’s hyperbole.

What makes you think I'm in any danger of that? I meant that as a standard, parsimony is a stupid way to judge a theory of any kind scientific or otherwise.

Ah, but that’s not what you were doing. You were trying to compare a Scientific Theory with a religious belief through Occam’s razor. And that very much is invalid. It is sophistry.

How could it not be, and within the specific and narrow confines of this issue (not the broader discussion about evolution, just the discussion about inference/ observation), why would it matter whether we were talking about scientific theories, theological theories, literary theories, etc?

If you are trying to apply Occam’s razor, then it very much matters. You are trying to apply concepts outside of where they have been found valid.

No, I'm offering a critique of Occam's razor.

By trying to apply it non- scientific sources, as a valid comparison with Scientific Sources. That is invalid, that is sophistry.

 

[justone]

Please document this claim. I don’t delve much into geometry or the shape of the universe. You have to provide a lot more explanation before I can accept your claim.[/COLOR]

He've made a few points I found interesting, but they are pretty much lost in fountains of.... I don't what. Talking too much and typing too much he went too far to too many places and -- overboard,... as always.
If he submits documents, don't be in a hurry to accept. It may look somewhat like he said about 2 geometries, but it is not like that at all in geometry. I am not saying I like you, -- I like geometry.

 

[steen]

He've made a few points I found interesting, but they are pretty much lost in fountains of.... I don't what. Talking too much and typing too much he went too far to too many places and -- overboard,... as always.
If he submits documents, don't be in a hurry to accept. It may look somewhat like he said about 2 geometries, but it is not like that at all in geometry.

Yes, it sounded like that to me. All sophistry, no substance.

I am not saying I like you, ...

:2wave:

 

[justone]

And how many mutations are required for speciation to occur?

The math is pretty simple: life in any recognizable form (Woese's pre-organism ancestors aside) for about 4 billion years. Estimates for the number of species that have ever existed range from 5 billion to 100 billion. If we go toward the lower end of that range and say that there have been 15 billion species that have ever existed, we get an average rate of speciation at once ever .26 years. Assuming that an average of ten mutations might be required to speciate, that's one beneficial mutation every few days. That seems a little narrow to me. I think most evolutionists don't ever do the math on this.
.

It blows my mind again. You are considering a linear function only. That would mean that evolution started in one spot and continued at equal rate. If this is true it must be observed in experiments. It should be a mathematical ( we are talking about numbers) axiom of Ev. On other hand if you need a predator and a prey you would have to have 2 spots to start, and they would have to be related to each other. Also you would need a unique condition not only in the Universe, but in a unique spot on our planet. So you would have to observe - in fossils or whatever - a geometrical expansion (spreading) of evolution from one spot, or at least one area. This again should be described by math and should be observed in experiments. Also you are excluding a chance of evolution speeding up in certain conditions, or in certain environments, and you are making the rate the same for species of all kinds and shapes, predators and preys, single cells and horses. Do you have any explanation and/ or experiments and/or observations to confirm? On other hand if evolution started in a 1000 spots ---repeat the same questions for 1000 spots. On other hand if there could be a fast evolution in the beginning, then it was slowing down to crawl ---- the same questions. Let’s say simple and primitive organisms did it fast, then the complicated and bigger ones had to slow down. And other 50 questions.
So you made some assumptions for your math, and I do not know if you had a base to make the assumptions. On other hand you’re saying that Darwin has not done any math about it – I don’t know, it would look like he did not have so much education, – it is better to have your math rather than nothing. Actually you touched my heart when I saw the numbers. If Ev. is talking about numbers it should confirm to math in the first place. And I think your view about science and philosophy is very questionable ( though I saw you wondering around a good point, but you never made it);– I would say you have to learn math before you decide to become a philosopher. If you love science, first of all you have to have an object to love, then you may start admiring it. And math is the base of all sciences.

 

[FallingPianos]

Because there are multiple different versions of the genes in the population. If we were still subject to natural selection, those with the poor eyes were less likely to success and make it to adulthood under natural conditions. There would be a lot less people with poor vision around under that condition. You cannot use humans over the last couple thousand years as arguments relating to Natural Selection, as no such thing has occurred over this time.

what about disease? aren't we still evolving to become immune to diseases?

 

[steen]

what about disease? aren't we still evolving to become immune to diseases?

Not really. As disease management now is run by medicine, not evolution, there is no weeding out of those prone to diseases. If we suddenly eliminated medical care completely, a bunch of people would die, and the rest would not be as succeptible to disease. That's how natural selection works, it "selects." Medicine doesn't select.

 

[FallingPianos]

Not really. As disease management now is run by medicine, not evolution, there is no weeding out of those prone to diseases. If we suddenly eliminated medical care completely, a bunch of people would die, and the rest would not be as succeptible to disease. That's how natural selection works, it "selects." Medicine doesn't select.

i have no doubt that medicine has slowed the process down, but people do still die of diseases even when they do receive treatment, and in 3rd world contries a lot of people simply dont recieve treatment. certainly modern medicine couldnt have stopped the process entirely?

 

[shuku]

i have no doubt that medicine has slowed the process down, but people do still die of diseases even when they do receive treatment, and in 3rd world contries a lot of people simply dont recieve treatment. certainly modern medicine couldnt have stopped the process entirely?

I would imagine that the rate of the development of medicine is far greater than the rate of beneficial genetic mutations. There may be a few in third world countries that benefit from them, but be aware that the mutations in bacteria/virusus affect the whole world with our global transportation systems. Humans have been humans for at least a several thousand years (no reference), but modern medicine is barely a few centeries old. The point is that antibiotics, vaccinies, and other treatment will have a major effect on the system of natural selection that organisms have been following.

But natural selection can continue on to the human domain. If you suppose that humans didn't eat beef, what would a cow do? Would there be cows? They're genetically bred (by human selection) to be the best livestock. And being the best livestock usually does not include being the best at surviving in "natural" habitats. However, livestock still exists today. So that through their ability to be useful to humanity, they have the advantage to survive as long as we deem fit. Some animal species may be going extinct now from technological changes and human occupation, but the genetic material of cows have the easy ride, where they don't have to compete for food or survival. Ironically, some animals have evolved to be the perfect prey.

 

[shuku]

I'd like to ask for a summary of both of the sides of the argument. It's getting difficult to find the facts in all of this banter. I think that it would help clarify the positions if the major representatives from each site put together a concise list of their points. It seems to me that the biggest players I would like to see represent are Steen, and Ashurbanipal, but anyone else can add. The discussion of each point can be brought forth at the time it's discussed. Also, if you can define some of your views of the terms, such as Evolution, Intelligent Design, Sophistry, and Neo-darwinism. Some of this arguing may stem from a misunderstanding of the meaning of this topic. Just trying to restore some order to this.

 

[steen]

i have no doubt that medicine has slowed the process down, but people do still die of diseases even when they do receive treatment, and in 3rd world contries a lot of people simply dont recieve treatment. certainly modern medicine couldnt have stopped the process entirely?

It is really close. Even the sicle-cell gene is being minimized throughout its range.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Actually, you are in error. The ID argument, as I provided it was: "(1) I can't imagine this happened naturally, (2) it MUST have been designed." #1 clearly addresses the first part. Hence, you are in error.

My claim is that your presentation of the argument is incorrect--i.e. it's a staw man.

Ash: The problem is that people think in binary terms about the issue--i.e. if it couldn't have happened by a known physical process, then it must have been supernatural.

Steen: Ah, but that also means that they ARE claiming it couldn't have happened naturally. Just as I pointed out, and in the face of evidence.

Think again. Are thunderstorms supernatural? At one time, people didn't understand how lightning creates a vaccuum, and how the air must rush back to fill the void, creating thunder. Now we understand this phenomenon. Similarly, I think we will one day understand some things about biology that are currently mysterious. But we ought to admit that they are currently mysterious, not attempt to say that we understand them or that there is nothing to understand.

What are 'evolutionists"?

More or less as the term indicates, they are people who are proponents of evolution (and, in context, presumably educated and vocal proponents).

And what is it they are "hastily trying to explain"? Are you talking about the scientific evidence that have been provided steadily as the reserahc has been done? Your attempt at portraying this as scrambling in the face of ID is patently false.

No, again you misunderstand and, ahem, act hastily. There is something of a scramble on. But it's not to back up what has already been proved. It is, rather, to use what has been proved to fill in an explanatory gap that rightly ought to be left open for the time being.

Well, their claim is not science. Claiming "it is like this BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE OTEHRWISE," is not science, it is fantasy, it is wishful thinking.

Well, this isn't really true. I believe that all triangles are three sided because I can't imagine otherwise. Is this some sort of fantasy?

We couldn't care less if ID is taught, as long as it isn't in a science class-room, where the subjects are those generated throguh the Scientific Method. That is the point. If somebody feel the kids need to be taught ID, that the world is flat, that it once was entirely flooded, they can do so in comparative religion or myth classes all you want. The issue is that ID is misrepresenting itself as science when it is not, when it merely is creationism with a new coat of paint.

I agree. I wouldn't even want to see ID taught in any context.

So your criticism is of all science, then. All science is unreliable, then!

If you mean that no science is 100% reliable, then of course that is correct. It will never be and can never be otherwise.

Again, who are these “neo-darwinists”?

As I've said twice now, they are evolutionists who believe evolution unfolded in roughly the way Darwin said it did (i.e. mostly by slow and steady progress over a great deal of time), but who prefer genetic evidence over cladistic evidence.

I am agreeing THAT for ALL mutations, the process is not random, yes. Mutations tend to appear time after time. Many of our genetic diseases are only partly inherited, and is as likely to be new mutations, and generally happen in the same 2-3 ways each time. There definitely is a pattern in Mutations, incl. per where in the DNA it occurs etc.

Again, this is tantamount to admitting I have a point.

Every intermediary of the eye that you can imagine as necessary in order to show that the path of evolution of the eye is necessary, is found in nature.

That would be impossible. There's probably not enough matter on this planet to be made into eyes to accomodate such an insane claim. To cover every immaginable intermediate step, you'd have to have one set of eyes for every piece of matter that ever moved in any exemplar of an eye since their inception. Obviously, this is just not so. But we could talk a little more loosely and say that we just need an example for every eye that ever existed. Again, nonsense. What we have are eyes that would seem to form various relationships, some of which are linear. In other words, we look at the eyes in creatures A,B,C, and D and realize that each one is progressively more advanced than the previous one, yet bears some resemblance to it. The (valid) inference is that one evolved from the other.

But that does not answer the question in the slightest. I do not deny that eyes evolved in the same way that everything else evolved. But when we ask specifically how they evolved, we find certain things are unexplainable at our current level of knowledge.

Please come up with an intermediary step in the evolution of the eye that you find as necessary and which does not already occur in nature, why don’t you. No? THAT is what I mean.

I understand what you mean. Does the fact that we can put Shakespeare's plays in order tell us anything about how he wrote them? We can pick up certain clues and we have a few external sources with information pertinent, but overall, we're still in the dark about specifically how he wrote his plays. Was he just imagining things on paper, or were some of the characters based on real people, or what? Do the plays reveals other things about his life? Is it possible that one or more of his plays were written by others? Are they actually his words, or words embellished by his actors? And why can't everybody write like he did?

That we can string his words in order tells us nothing of the method and means of his writing. Similarly, because we can point to eyes that form linear relationships between and among each other, doesn't in itself form an explanation for those eyes.

And anyway, your challenge is absurdly easy: we need an eye with a cornea and a piece of non-lens-shaped tissue that is high in Keratin, and otherwise composed of the same tissue that lenses are that somehow provides a survival advantage. And if we find that this has occurred with bilateral symmetry, we need an explanation for that as well.

Actually, genetic changes leads to optic changes that are advantageous and then get promoted in the population.

Yes, but were the laws of Optics different than they are, different changes would be promoted, no?

I am NOT saying they would get perfect sight. I am saying that the brain would adjust for the optimum use of the eyes in whatever condition they are in. You don’t need a genetic change that yields an optimal eye. You just need one that gives an individual eyesight that is better than others in that population.

Then you haven't answered my original criticism at all. To review, the question was this: when lenses first began to appear, they obviously changed the way that light struck the retina. This appears to me to imply that either the corresponding mutations occurred that allowed the brain to adjust, or that lenses initially created a disadvantage. I happen to believe option 1, but that's something that requires explanation. Why would it be the case that a mutation that would cause a lens would also cause the brain to get wired differently? However, either option is not explainable with known physical processes.

Not if the rest of the population did not have lenses.

No, this is just wrong. A brain built for an eye with no lens will cause the creature in possession thereof to be at a disadvantage if it also happens to have eyes with lenses.

Your argument is false as is your logic. A lens vs. no lens gives advantage to the one with the lens as I explained in my post. It appears that you are ignoring what I write, which is rather insulting. Are you that dishonest? Else, go back and read what I wrote.

No, I read everything you write most carefully. If you think lenses are an automatic advantage, try wearing the glasses of a severely far-sighted person. Put on four or five pairs. If you find yourself seriously disadvantaged, then maybe lenses qua lenses aren't necessarily good after all.

CURRENT lenses do. That doesn’t mean that the first lens would have. You are again trying to make comparisons with structures as we have them today. That is dishonest or ignorant.

The Keratin is necessary to keep the lens from deforming as the ocular orbits are re-positioned (i.e. as the eyes move). Lenses without keratin wouldn't be lenses, they'd just be extra cornea, which would cause everything to look like a foggy funhouse mirror.

Certainly. A collagen lens vs. no lens at all. Which is best? And over time, do you find it impossible that mutations could not cause changes in the collagen lens to structure more keratin into it?

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with histogenesis, but in any case:

1) Neither is necessarily better; the benefit is accrued due to the context. This is why there's an issue.

2) No, of course random mutation causing more keratin to occur in the lens is not impossible. But it is retrospectively about as likely as everyone in the state of Alaska winning the lottery serially for the next several years without cessation. And in any case, it leaves completely open the question of how the first bit of lens was an advantage--if it wasn't lens shaped (as would seem likely if random mutation caused it) then it conferred a disadvantage. If it was lens shaped, then how does random mutation account for it?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Ah, but trying to use Occam’s Razor in science to include non-scientific stories is highly dishonest as well. That was ALSO explained in my post, which you obviously didn’t read.

Again, I read it, but I disagree with you. I'm not trying to include something non-scientific in science. But without some effort of this sort to validate science, science is no better than religion.

If you are just here to proselytize your claims with no regard for arguments arising from this, then what the hell is the purpose of our communication? If you truly are THAT dishonest, then you can stuff it.

Your tone is not warranted. I have answered every point you've made so far, and so far, your answers in turn seem to have little to do with the topic under discussion.

And your claim is false. You can not see light as it is emitted from its source, you can only see its reflection, which according to you must mean that it really isn’t showed to exist.

No, I would infer the existence of something I saw in a mirror. But in any case, why is it that you can only see the reflection of light? What is a reflection of light, anyway?

We don’t see the light source itself. Do you really want to get into a discussion of physics here?

If you like. Of course, you are correct; technically, we see the light that is emitted. But it should have been clear from context that that's what I meant.

yes, that is the level of silliness your argument has to resort to, to justify your argument. If Evolution doesn’t exist, nor does gravity. Yeah, good one.

No, again, this isn't what I said. I said that if inference doesn't count as evidence then we have no evidence for natural selection or gravity. However, lack of evidence for one doesn't cause lack of evidence for the other.

As is the case with Natural Selection, Evolution and so on. An argument you SPECIFICALLY rejected before. So where you lying then, or are you lying now? Or were you just not very good at expressing what the heck you meant because you were entangled in your own sophistry?

No, I rejected them conditionally--meaning that if some condition x obtained, then the argument was to be rejected.

And that is not true now for either Natural Selection/Evolution or Gravity. Hence, they are now evidenced to the level of a Scientific Theory rather than Scientific Models or Scientific Hypotheses.

All true, but it admits my point. To review: my claim is that we have evidence for as-yet undiscovered processes that impinge upon the results of evolution. I claim also that the intuition behind the ID argument shows this, though the ID argument itself is invalid. I claim also that so long as we are committed to truth, then we should investigate the issue scientifically to arrive either at new truths or a new understanding of old truths. Admitting, therefore, that there was a time that we understood nothing of gravity, but now we do, is to admit the possibility that there are laws we do not currently understand, but one day will.

Ash: while at the same time denying that inference is sufficient to support the notion of a creator. That tactic is illegitimate.

SteenOf course it is LEGITIMATE. There is no evidence for a creator. List one. No?

If inference counts as evidence, then there is evidence that some mechnanism other than random mutation + natural selection is at work. In any case, I've said before I don't think it takes an intelligent being, so why try to place that onus on me?

Individuals don’t evolve, populations do.

I'm not sure why this is relevant. The point was that embryos are rather more susceptible to genetic mutation than adults; mutations that occur while an embryo is in-vivo therefore tend to be promulgated more within a population.

So I am still not sure what it is you claim the implication is. And if I was you, I would stay away from Gould’s pop-science. It might be good for giving good overview to those who have no fore-knowledge, but it is not particularly specific or accurate science.

Gould was a highly respected scientist and Harvard professor who wrote one of the key modern texts on evolution called "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." It is still used in Masters level biology courses, and probably will be for some time. There are any number of people who should be accused of doing "pop" science before he should.

Ash:Below a certain threshold, that is no longer the case, simply due to tissue elasticity.

Steen:Because you say so?

I do say so, but common sense ought to prevail easily enough here. What practical advantage would be conveyed by a very small indentation in stretchy tissue? The nuts being gathered would have to be extremely small before any more of them could be gathered. Alternately, the initial mutation would have had to be significant, and the brain of the squirrel mutated simultaneously to create new behavior. Take your pick, neither scenario is explainable solely with random mutation + natural selection.

Why should I care. I am not even sure who these “neo-darwinists” are. I don’t care how people explain it. I care what the scientific evidence says.

Inasmuch as those scientists you refer to are mostly neo-darwinists, and inasmuch as the evidence they're using is the evidence for the Darwinian mechanism, your point is flat.

And why would this have to be a gradual change. Some genetic changes result in huge changes. The single VOX gene mutation, f.ex. has been documented to result in a change from 6 to 4 legs. All you need is a gene that knocks out the 3rd strand of collagen. f.ex. And all it would have to do would be for the squirrel to be able to carry one nut easier than the other squirrels.

You mean Hox genes? I've not studied VOX genes, whatever those are.

In any case, yes, this is an example of what I'm saying. Except, when Hox genes are forcefully mutated in fruit flies, the result is an invalid fly that dies quickly because it cannot function. Imagine if, when a genetecist mutated one of those genes, the resultant 4 legged fly's brain also mutated to tell it how to function with four legs. That would be extraordinary. In the case of the squirrels, that's exactly what happened, and we do not know why.

OK, go tell that to a neo-darwinist. The reality is that we have not found other mechanisms yet, and that we are able to explain current findings with the current data.

No, we are not, though I think to stem the tide of religious fervor, we're busy trying to look as if we are.

So why would we need to look for anything else, of supernatural nature.

Who said anything about something of supernatural nature (assuming that's not an oxymoron)? I said that we ought to be looking for something entirely natural.

Because certainly, with 150 years of research that solidly explains the changes we have observed, why would there have to be another cause. What is it that you have observed that necessitates another mechanism?

Exactly what I've already given examples of, but I can spout them off all day if you want to deny them.

Do you have any reason for this belief other than that you WANT there to be something else?

Yes.

When you are rejecting current science, are you sure you know what actual science is saying.

1) I do not reject current science. In fact, I think it's clear that some evolution can be explained via mutation + natural selection. But some cannot; the only claim I reject is that this is a complete explanation.

2) I will never be sure I understand science. I wouldn't be sure even if I had every science degree conferred by every reputable university in the world.

 

[ashurbanipal]

You come across as having gained most of your knowledge through arguments with others, not from the actual science. You keep talking about what “neo-darwinists say,” not what the science shows.

1) I gain knowledge from many sources. Arguments with others is one of them, but I've read plenty of and taken courses in biology, though I do not have a degree in biology.

2) All claims are made by people; so talking about what some specific group claims or would claim is legitimate.

And now I need a scientific reference for that claim.

I'll see if I can find it; as I said, it was something that Gould mentioned in an lecture.

you don’t have to be good at carrying nuts, you only have to be better than your neighbor. So that’s bogus.

But the initial stages would not have conferred a comparative advantage. So that is my claim. Why is it bogus?

So far, all you have used for reply is sophistry and unsubstantiated claims.

1) What exactly do you mean by sophistry and how would you distinguish legitimate argumentation from sophistry?

2) I think my claims need little substantiation other than the conversation itself; my point is about logic and the logical implications of commonly known facts. Your asking for substantiation is sort of like asking for proof that 2+7=9.

3) But in any case, I have provided some substantiation by naming authors that anyone with a little chutzpah could hie themselves down to the library and look up (e.g. Gould and Quine).

Ah, so even though we have explained gravity, we can’t accept it exists because it might still be that Goddidit, or something else did it? Ignoring that all experiments conducted are confirming its existence and its fixed force proportion?

No, if we can't show the existence of gravity (as we can't under the scenario that inference is not evidence), then we could hardly claim to have explained gravity. Unless we posit the existence of gravity, what we're explaining is the motion of bodies in freefall.

It is as certain as any other scientific result. It is certain enough that it provides accurate predictions of changes, it is accurate enough that we can base medical and biological science on it. It is certain enough to the point where we have not seen any evidence disproving it. Now, either you provide some evidence or start admitting that all you are doing here is spewing sophistic philosophy with no foundation in reality.

Well, first define sophistry and sophistic philosophy and provide a rigorous standard how we can distinguish them from non-sophistry, and I'll be happy to do so. Anyway, my reply to this ought to be easy enough to discern.

Irrelevant. Both were arguing about how the real world exists outside of our perceived reality, which is the same idea that “The Matrix” was trying to push. What you are trying to claim is that what we can observe, measure, and confirm in repeated experiments might be a figment of our imagination.

If it's irrelevant, why'd you bring it up? To review, you're the one who mentioned Plato and the Matrix first, not I. I've been trying to explain that what I'm saying has very little to do with either, and you're now saying that this is irrelevant?

Ash:Yes, everything could be one big hallucination; Kant had a pretty good reply to this, though.

Steenin which case EVERYTHING is a fiction

You think that because everything could be a big hallucination, it necessarily is the case that everything is a fiction? I don't think that's true.

and your attempt at comparing science and ID therefore would be bogus. Where you dishonest then or are you dishonest now?

So you're saying that because everything is a big fiction (a point I deny, but I'll play along), my (non-existent) attempt at comparing science and ID are bogus?

In any case, I've said that ID is not science, and that ID is invalid. I'm saying there's a valid intuition behind part of the ID argument that should not be ignored. Furthermore, whether I'm correct or not, that's an entirely reasonable claim which seems like it won't all fit in your head at once.

That’s the problem with sophistry, sooner or later you end up contradicting yourself because you are basing your argument on what-ifs rather than reality.

Where did I contradict myself?

And gravity is a figment of your imagination and it is supernatural, invisible angles flying around and keeping everything in place. Well, it COULD be, right? SO any position is meaningless, again proving the dishonesty of your then arguments of comparing and contrasting ID and science.

Time out. If I said to you: "If I get enough money on my next bonus, I'm going to take a trip to Hawaii," would you think I was saying the same as "I'm going to take a trip to Hawaii?"

Of course not. The first is a conditional claim--i.e. if some condition x obtains (getting enough money on my bonus), then some other condition will be brought about (i.e. my taking a trip to Hawaii). The second is what logicians would call a molecular claim (the use of the word has nothing to do with physical molecules). The second means that regardless of any other condition, I am going to Hawaii.

Now, when I say "If inference cannot be taken as evidence, then there is no evidence for Natural Selection or Gravity," is it clear that I mean there is no evidence for Natural Selection or Gravity? Of course not; the claim is a conditional claim. The claim "There is no evidence for Natural Selection or Gravity" is true just in case "inference cannot be taken as evidence" is true.

The practical implication is obvious and I've stated it several times, though not in such simple terms. Inference can be taken as evidence. There is, therefore, evidence of both Gravity and Natural Selection.

I've then stated a second conditional: "If inference can be taken as evidence, then some thing x other than the standard evolutionary mechanism can be inferred as necessary to explain some of the facts of biology." This is where the example of the eye comes in; I'm curious to see what you come up with there.

As creationism is a fantasy already proven false per evidence

There is evidence that creationism is false? I'd love to see it.

Occam’s razor doesn’t even enter the picture.

Yet, IIRC, you were the one that brought up the term "parsimony" in this discussion.

Occam’s razor is used to distinguish between possible causes of observable evens for which there is potential evidence of both causes.

There's potential evidence for anything. If you mean, actual evidence for two things, then no, it's not used that way. Occam's razor is used to pick among two theories that have exactly the same observational consequences.

And people have been saying so per speculation with no scientific evidence to back it up. You are again misrepresenting science here, again comparing “only a theory” with “Scientific Theory.” Such attempt at equalizing the two is inherently dishonest.

Now I don't get what you are talking about. You said that God (and, by implication and context, all things of a "spiritual" bent) are not demonstrable by repeatable experience. I said that's not correct, that one of the principle advances of the axial age (and one that is entirely under-rated in our society) is the repeatability and predictability of spiritual experience. This has nothing to do with the conversation per se, it was just a response to a claim you made that I take to be false.

Ash:The mistake in that thinking is that there are supernatural things to begin with. There is actually quite a body of scientific literature on things supposed to be supernatural; I don't think they're supernatural at all.

Steen”supposed to” What mealy-mouthed copout is this?

It's not a cop-out at all. By "supposed to" I mean that people generally suppose the subjects in question to be supernatural, whereas I say that if they exist, by definition they're natural.

False. NS is the process of generational change to a better fit to the environment. It is observed, your claim is sophistry.

No, things supposed to have undergone natural selection are observed. Natural selection is not observed, and by definition can never be observed--it is inferred. If you want to claim otherwise, take a picture of natural selection (not the words "natural selection" and not a creature supposed to be the result of natural selection--I mean natural selection itself) and post it here.

Claiming that it is never observed is not the same as claiming it does not exist, and is not the same as claiming that it isn't scientific, etc. etc. But if you admit that we have to infer its existence based on what we do actually observe (i.e. living things, fossils, other known forces, various environments, etc.), then you have to admit that inference is valid as evidence for something, and then it's a simple matter of logic and reasoning from well-known facts.

God as a supernatural entity can not be established through inference because you have no facts to infer from, no repetitive outcome, no evidence at all. Your claim is false.

I didn't say anything about God as a supernatural entity, and I claimed I did not know if God could be established through inference, and I claimed that analysis would depend on what you mean by God. If by 'God' I happen to mean my bottle of peppermint oil, I assure you I can establish its existence quite handily.

So why are any of those claims, which are repetitions of what I said before, false?

 

[ashurbanipal]

In connection with genetic mutations, it very much can. Do you have evidence to the contrary? What is it that can not have happened? Back to the ID argument of “I can’t imagine, in my ignorance” that this occurred naturally.”

Sure. Once again, the lens. It's hardly ignorant to point out that this would require some correspondent mutations that are really quite extraordinary and cannot be accounted for by random mutation.

It DOES fit gravity, Natural Selection and Evolution. It does NOT fit God.

Again, depends on what you mean by 'God.'

I am using the scientific terminology. The only difference between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific law is how involved it is. If it is a simple and consistent mathematical relationship, then the Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Model becomes a Scientific Law. If it is more involved and the Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Model end up covering complex interactions on many levels, then it becomes a Scientific Theory. YOUR claim shows a serious ignorance of Science and of the Scientific Method, as there is no “categorical” difference

I know quite a number of reputable scientists who would disagree. You're correct in a sense, but theories explain why and how, laws tell us what.

Which is still a Scientific Hypothesis, not a Scientific Theory or Scientific Law.

One that was nevertheless granted serious weight within a decade of being published, all without any testing (at that time--i.e. the late teens). And the history of science is rife with such examples. The point is that there's an idealized abstract concept called "The Scientific Method" which has only somewhat to do with what scientists actually do.

The Scientific Method is a process of verification of the accuracy of data. This verification happens for every set of data that becomes part of a Scientific Theory or a Scientific law. Your claim is false.

Prove it. I've offered a counter-example, and I only need one to be right.

The explanation that fits all the data and provides the best. most straight-forward explanation is the final explanation.

But which do we choose when two competing and contradictory explanations both explain things equally straight-forwardly, equally well, each accounting for all the evidence? This does happen, you know. The Eddington-Poincare debate being an excellent example.

Please document this claim. I don’t delve much into geometry or the shape of the universe. You have to provide a lot more explanation before I can accept your claim.

Sure. For an in-depth discussion, pick up a book called "Space, Time, and Spacetime" by Lawrence Sklar.

Ah, so you are back in philosophy and what-ifs. How nice for you. Prove it, show an example. No? Oh, it is all hypothetical? DUH!

Sure, I'll show how it plays out. Tell you what--name any currently accepted explanation for anything in any branch of science, and I'll give a detailed account.

That still doesn’t make sense, because the only thing that makes sense per the term “Darwinism” is some kind of adherence to Darwin’s original Scientific Hypothesis. And that is as irrelevant today as the Wright Brothers are to Space Shuttle design.

Not really. Certain aspects of Darwinian theory are (obviously) accepted today, while other aspects are considered out of date. m-DNA regressions, for instance, have corrected some of the results of cladistics, which was one of Darwin's original primary pieces of evidence.

There is no “Darwinism.” There is the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Is that what you are referring to so inaccurately here?

Punctuated Equilibrists, for instance, don't think of themselves as Darwinists. They accept that evolution happened, but believe that the darwinian mechanisms do not completely account for certain anomalous characteristics of the fossil record as a whole, or for the observed results of deliberate experimentation with genetic mutations.

Comparison between what?

Between the unobserved number of events necessary to an ID account vs. a Darwinian account of evolution.

Of course not. That merely means that it is not a mutation that took. Lots of other mutations have, so it still doesn’t justify or prove your original claim of “So, because of the uniqueness of each instance, we need as many entities as there have been mutations. We need not only all those mutations that worked, but all those that did not if we are to explain the evidence of genetics today.”

So again, I must ask WHY?

Well, unless you have a different understanding of English than I, it quite clearly does provide justification. If there are some random mutations that don't "take", and we assume this has always been the case, then very clearly we need extra unknown genetic mutations that we don't need in a creationist account.

Note that I'm not using this to support creationism; I'm showing why parsimony is not always a good criteria by which to judge a theory.

Actually, that is a lie. Creationist “facts” are directly disproved by evidence, so no it doesn’t fit.

Really? How so?

Irrelevant, as “neo-darwinism” obviously, as you use it, is not the same as the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Whatever knock-off group you are talking about has no relevance to the actual science.

I would say that 90% of all biologists, anthropologists, botanists, etc. today are neo-darwinists. And this isn't a term I've invented, I believe even Dawkins and Woese have described themselves as neo-Darwinists. By this, they mean that they believe in the standard Darwinian mechanism for evolution, but prefer genetic evidence over cladistic evidence.

”most types of creationism”? No creationism has scientific backing for its claim. So that’s hyperbole.

Are you so current on all the various creationist accounts that you can say that with certainty? Surely you're aware that there must be millions of such accounts; even as widely read as I am I wouldn't dare make that claim.

Ah, but that’s not what you were doing. You were trying to compare a Scientific Theory with a religious belief through Occam’s razor. And that very much is invalid. It is sophistry.

How would any two theories be compared "through" Occam's razor? If you mean I was showing that neo-darwinism is less parsimonious than intelligent design, you're correct, and that's exactly what I did show, your attempts at confusing my words notwithstanding. The point is that most defenders of neo-darwinism attempt to use Occam's razor as a means of showing their theory as the preferred theory. My counter-claim is that parsimony can be used in a variety of ways and is therefore a dumb way to judge any theory. We therefore have logic as the primary arbiter.

If you are trying to apply Occam’s razor, then it very much matters. You are trying to apply concepts outside of where they have been found valid.

So you think that Occam's razor applies only within science?

By trying to apply it non- scientific sources, as a valid comparison with Scientific Sources. That is invalid, that is sophistry.

You seem to be saying that there is an a priori reason to circumscribe science as the only genuine guarantor and guardian of truth. This may seem legitimate to you, but keep in mind that a thousand years ago, that's exactly what early Medieval Bishops did with the Catholic catechism and dogma. For reasons that ought to be obvious, it's unreasonable to set any group of theories, arrived at via any means, apart so that no other kind of explanation could be legitimately compared. In fact, that just seems silly.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Steen,

If you would like, I can post a shorter summary of the last four posts; there was much to reply to in your posts and I felt compelled to do so. But for the sake of convenience, I can sum up.

Of course, if you prefer to respond to the whole thing, I would love to see it.

 

[justone]

Steen,

If you would like, I can post a shorter summary of the last four posts; .

I don't know what steen thinks, but I would love to see some shorter summary, and I Would love to see just a few subjects, not like jumping all over the place. You a master of keyboarding, you may have some points, but you type too much about too many things. I would love to see your points to be a little bit more structured. Just shave your beards with with the Occam's Razor , you would look better.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well, here are the main points summarized:

1) It's dangerous to let the conversation devolve from a discussion of the issues at stake to one about what science is or isn't, with the assumption that science is the supreme guardian of truth, the standard against which all others systems must be compared. Though science has been successful at helping us to understand the physical world, it has its limitations and its blind spots. Saying that if a statement is not scientific, then it is not as true as a scientific statement is nonsensical. Furthermore, there is no agreed-upon definition of science or a universally used scientific method. There are general sketches of each, but no more.

2) While ID as a whole is invalid, there is a valid intuition behind part of the argument. This intuition in turn denotes something about the world that is not adequately explained by any of the known and posited mechanisms of evolution. This does not mean that evolution didn't happen or that the known mechanisms were not responsible for some of it--they clearly were and are. The things this intuition points out require an explanation for which we do not currently have the tools. The proper way to proceed, then, is to consider that we must build onto what we already know--and this is hardly anything remarkable.

3) The principle defense against this is that there's no evidence for it. I say, however, that there's as much evidence for it as there is for gravity or natural selection; we've never observed any of them. We can predict the effects of gravity rather precisely, but natural selection much less so (we couldn't predict, for instance, exactly what future generations of humans are going to become). So, if inference counts as evidence, then there is evidence for the intuition behind ID.

4) The problems that ID points to should be taken seriously. First, having a string of mutations for which we can see a linear progression does not tell us anything about how those mutations occurred in the way they did, and especially how they managed to occur in a way that suggests parameters were in place and that other mutations occurred to accomodate the first at the same time. Second, the problem is supervened on by another problem to do with histogenesis, which I only hinted at in the posts above.

5) I suspect that, rather than an intelligent creator, we're simply going to discover new laws that explain the phenomena already belabored. Until then, however, it is disingenuous to claim to have all the answers. We do not know all the mechanisms of evolution. It is also disingenuous to a priori circumscribe the discussion so as to leave off talking of God altogether.

6) Finally, there are a few other minor points that are usually ill-understood even by scientists--for instance, the notion that parsimony is a primary means for judging the worth of a theory. And many other such concepts deserve to be challenged.

 

[justone]

Well, here are the main points summarized:

1)Pretty good, though some details may be polished, so do not loose your temper if some additions and corrections are submitted.
2)Intuition, though a valid tool, because it exists, must be used by you to formulate a statement. But you cannot refer to the intuition as an argument, you have to refer to observations and logic applied to observations, at least. Let me suggest: observations show that science is incapable of explaining things around us, and, based on the record, it will never be capable of explaining things around us. I suggested many times, that all our scientific findings are findings of what we don’t know.
Also it has been formulated thousands years ago, and the majority of real scientists agree that: the more we know, the more we don’t know.
It is a postulate, an axiom of our existence.

 

[justone]

We can predict the effects of gravity rather precisely,

.

In a very limited and in a very narrow application.
We just discovered that gravity is a huge puzzle, - this is one of most important discoveries of the last century. And we have no idea what kind of Pandora box we are are trying to open, working on gravity