Can we distinguish human v. natural excavations?

_{David L. Hagen

January 16, 2012

Culture, Design inference, Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design}

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

Large geometric shapes are being discovered beneath the Amazon forest. Have the discoverers evaluated their origins correctly? If so, why? Is there any way to distinguish between artifacts caused by human and extraterrestrial agents?
Once Hidden by Forest, Carvings in Land Attest to Amazon’s Lost World By SIMON ROMERO January 14, 2012

RIO BRANCO, Brazil — Edmar Araújo still remembers the awe.
As he cleared trees on his family’s land decades ago near Rio Branco, an outpost in the far western reaches of the Brazilian Amazon, a series of deep earthen avenues carved into the soil came into focus.
“These lines were too perfect not to have been made by man,” said Mr. Araújo, a 62-year-old cattleman. . . .
The deforestation that has stripped the Amazon since the 1970s has also exposed a long-hidden secret lurking underneath thick rain forest: flawlessly designed geometric shapes spanning hundreds of yards in diameter.

Alceu Ranzi, a Brazilian scholar who helped discover the squares, octagons, circles, rectangles and ovals that make up the land carvings, said these geoglyphs found on deforested land were as significant as the famous Nazca lines, the enigmatic animal symbols visible from the air in southern Peru.

“What impressed me the most about these geoglyphs was their geometric precision, and how they emerged from forest we had all been taught was untouched except by a few nomadic tribes,” said Mr. Ranzi, a paleontologist who first saw the geoglyphs in the 1970s and, years later, surveyed them by plane.

Hundreds of Geoglifos Discovered in the Amazon 2010.01.20

Geoglifos is the term applied in Brazil to geometric earthworks discovered after recent deforestation. Geoglyphs are not new in South American archaeology, but these are different—massive earthworks of tropical forest soil rather than desert surface alterations. The Amazon Geoglifos present geometric forms; circles, squares, ellipses, octagons, and more, with individual forms up to several hundred meters across. Some are connected by parallel walls. Their distribution spans hundreds of kilometers, and much of the area remains forested jungle.

POSTCARDS FROM THE AMAZON: Massive clues of Amazon area’s past 2010

The geoglyphs in Acre were made by digging ditches into the earth to create shapes like circles, squares, and diamonds. They are outlined by ditches up to 20 feet deep and range from 300 to 1,000 feet in diameter.

Squares

Circles

Ranzi geoglyphs Google search

—————————————-

For a serious discussion see Kairosfocus’ comment

Comments

In typical evo fashion Kevin ran away from here only to spew more nonsense (notice that he, once again, doesn't provide any support for his claim):
Of course the denizens of UD misrepresent the design inference all the time, but no one calls them to the carpet on that. Ah well... hypocrisy, thy name is ID.
What do you to with people like that?Joe_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PST}

So that is it? We get Kevin's strawman, followed by Kevin's lies, followed by Kevin running away. Sweet...Joe_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PST}

Chas, We've veering into obfuscation. One need not dig very deep on the subject of evolution to know that the primary mechanisms by which it is thought to operate are variation and selection. I don't say that to oversimplify. I know that there are others. I know that the term "variation" encompasses more than point mutations. I also understand that the term "evolution" is not rigidly specific to the origin of species or to the effects of variation and selection. Loss of function is evolution. The trouble is that these terms are all so plastic that must either spell them out in boring detail, post after post, because the moment you don't, someone is waiting to pounce and bog you down by pointing out a more specific or general meaning of a term. That is why I may use the terms "genetic variation and selection" over and over and over like a broken record.
Which curriculum? High school? University? Genetics? Evolutionary Biology? Microbiology? Botany? Zoology? Ecology? Taxonomy? Anthropology?
We are talking about the fundamentals of evolution. Not the fine details, but the fundamentals. Why would there be a difference? Nonetheless, variation and natural selection are held to be a key mechanisms of evolution. You can add more into the mix, and I can understand the desire to supplement them. But regardless of the ensemble they are the stars of the show, not the extras.
That is, I’m not saying evolution is true because biologists say it is, but that learning the biology might provide clarification. It’s not just what-they’re-saying, it’s why-they’re-saying-it.
How condescending and pointless to assume that if I disagree with what they say I must not understand why they are saying it. In other words, I disagree with them because I don't know what they know, and if I did know I wouldn't disagree. That's a hybridization of appeal to authority and begging the question. 'Why they are saying it' is actually the very dead center of this debate, and so far no one wants to go there. They prefer to post links to the research papers containing 'what they are saying.' After I object a dozen times pointing out that these are the 'what' not the 'why,' you kindly point out the importance of understanding the 'why.' I've been asking 'why' for hundreds of posts. So have others. How nice to know that I've finally gotten the question across. Sorry for being a bit cross, but I'm exasperated at all of this back-and-forth only to have my own question thrown back at me. And I find it oddly convenient that it should take you countless posts to suddenly decide that the subject cannot be properly discussed among lay people. Perhaps you're right, but if you had said so fifty posts ago it wouldn't sound like a retreat. If you wish to shift the subject from the role of evolution in biology to the role of natural selection in evolution then there are plenty of darwinists on hand to debate with you. I think they'll be inclined to let it slide, though, because spreading the causative power around to more and more vaguely specified mechanisms just takes more pressure off everyone and makes the central dogma of evolution seem like less of a dead end.ScottAndrews2_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST}

Chas:I guess I don’t know how to make that point without it appearing as an appeal to authority. Scott: It looks like that because it is that. So you can’t.
I don't think it means what you think it means. "Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct. a says p about S. Therefore, p is correct. " Try substitution: "Most of what (biologists) say on (biology) is correct. (Biologists) say (evolution is true) about (this aspect of biology). Therefore, (evolution is true). " Mine was not an argument of that form - pointing to a particular individual or group of individuals and inferring accuracy in all their opinions on the subject. or: " (biologists) hold that (evolution) is true (biologist X) is a legitimate expert on the subject. The consensus of experts agrees with (biologist X). Therefore, there's a presumption that (evolution is true). " Neither conforms with what I said. I am not asserting any truth for evolution based upon the number of adherents or their expertise. But the possession of a thorough grounding in biology is vital for a sensible critique of evolutionary theory. The fact that biologists are overwhelmingly OK with it might conceivably point to an error in your conception. That is, I'm not saying evolution is true because biologists say it is, but that learning the biology might provide clarification. It's not just what-they're-saying, it's why-they're-saying-it. And I don't mean lazy positions such as "'cos they're all atheistic ideologues". If, possessed of it, you continued to disagree, your criticism would at least avoid the errors that plague most dialogue - getting the biology right is rather central, don't you think? If I had $1 for every anti-speciationist that misunderstood the role of meiosis and syngamy ...
Chas: Relationship is the cornerstone of biology, not the ‘variation-and-selection’ that you seem to think evolution means. Scott: I’m afraid that position isn’t given equal weight in the curriculum.
Which curriculum? High school? University? Genetics? Evolutionary Biology? Microbiology? Botany? Zoology? Ecology? Taxonomy? Anthropology? here are some courses at Stanford. Many mention evolution. Which do you think so only in terms reducible to "variation & selection" (ie ignoring descent, relationship and diversity)?
But the mechanisms are ‘up for grabs’ as long as we can start with some ground rules on what they aren’t? Fine, if we can’t make it better we can at least make it faster.
I expect that's clever, but I'm afraid it is beyond me.Chas D_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST}

So to recap, Kevin gets his strawman exposed, spews a bunch of lies for a distraction and then rolls it all up in one ignorant rant. You rock Kev...Joe_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

Kevin, You are a lying fool. YOUR position says that evolution is random. Intelliigent Design says evolution is not random. But again you think that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution, which means you are a fool. Kevin sez:
He never claimed that ID is anti-evolution, but the statements of the leaders of ID show that ID is anti-evolution.
You mean statements like these: Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance. Then we have: What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution. Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
Next Kevin sez:
Archeology and forensics also know who the ‘designer’ is, what he/she/it is capable of and the methods by which the design is accomplished.
That is false. We still don't know who designed and built stonehenge and there are plenty of unsolved crimes. Yes you are done here, done exposing your ignorance, that is.Joe_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PST}

Well, I could have sworn you did suggest suspicion at motive – replacing trying to convince you for trying to convince themselves remains some kind of rationalisation for others’ behaviour that they do not themselves perceive.
Yes, but that's hardly ulterior.
Authorities can all be wrong, but you should understand why they think they are right if (say) you want your position to be given equal weight in the curriculum.
Are you implying that I should understand what they are saying before I disagree with them? Let me carefully consider that... yes, I think we agree there. You miss the point, though. It's not about why they think they're right. It's about getting them to say what it is they think is right. Never specifying the operation of any darwinian mechanism makes right or wrong very hard to pin down. You don't even notice yourself doing it. Now you're telling me that having 'equal weight in the curriculum' is the measure of validity. Am I to understand that the curriculum is the measure of itself?
I guess I don’t know how to make that point without it appearing as an appeal to authority.
It looks like that because it is that. So you can't.
Variation and selection are mechanistic considerations that are up for grabs, but relationship is not. Relationship is the cornerstone of biology, not the ‘variation-and-selection’ that you seem to think evolution means.
I'm afraid that position isn't given equal weight in the curriculum.
I hope you’re not going to offer some ‘common design’ moonshine to explain the genetic relationship.
I wasn't going to. But the mechanisms are 'up for grabs' as long as we can start with some ground rules on what they aren't? Fine, if we can't make it better we can at least make it faster.ScottAndrews2_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PST}

Chas: Their determination can’t be simple frustration at obtuseness, can it? It must be ulterior. Scott: Didn’t I plainly state that I didn’t think this to be the case? You say you’re not appealing to authority, but you are. So many people can’t be wrong, because that would mean they’re either evil, morons, or both.
Well, I could have sworn you did suggest suspicion at motive - replacing trying to convince you for trying to convince themselves remains some kind of rationalisation for others' behaviour that they do not themselves perceive. Authorities can all be wrong, but you should understand why they think they are right if (say) you want your position to be given equal weight in the curriculum. I guess I don't know how to make that point without it appearing as an appeal to authority. It doesn't mean they are cleverer than you, but they may know more than you, and what they know is relevant to whether or not the evolutionary algorithm is a viable explanation. Is that a problem? There's no getting away from the fact that people who have studied a subject in depth are better equipped to consider aspects of it than those who have not. I am not offering that as a reason to agree with them (an appeal to authority) but as a suggestion that arguing without detailed understanding will get you nowhere outside the realms of internet argumentation. Which may be all you are after; I don't know.
Biology is mostly full of credible science, and evolution seeks to borrow that credibility.
Just ... no. How do you separate the 'credible science' of biology, that provides extensive classificatory detail of the vast diversity of living and fossil organisms in terms of relationship, from this feeble philosophical carbuncle that you seem to think evolution is. It's not just some vague notion dreamed up by a Victorian gent in a vacuum, who then tried to find a couple of examples that fit. The vast classificatory detail feeds directly into the theory of evolution. The core of the theory is that organisms appear related because they are related. Variation and selection are mechanistic considerations that are up for grabs, but relationship is not. Relationship is the cornerstone of biology, not the 'variation-and-selection' that you seem to think evolution means. I hope you're not going to offer some 'common design' moonshine to explain the genetic relationship.Chas D_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST}

It's a shame that you don't see what JoeG sends directly to me. For example
Fuck you Kevin- I never claimed evolution was random. I have claimed ID is not anti-evolution. And I have claimed that intelligent design evolution is not random. Not only that archaeology claims to be able to determine design from not. Forensic science claims to be able to do the same. YOUR position claims to be able to determine design from not you moron. But thanks for dropping by UD and proving that you are a clueless dolt.
It's also a shame that JoeG doesn't understand that when he says
Peter, Stop with your false accusations. You cannot produce anything taht says the theory of evolution has other mechanisms besides accumulations of random mutations. Why was ID supplanted? Obviously it wasn’t in the minds of the majority…
my emphasis means that he thinks there is nothing but randomness involved, even in natural selection. Of course, JoeG offers this quote to support his position
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative September 9, 2005 Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Again, he sees the word random, and totally unsure of the rules for grammer and sentence structure in the English language thinks that this means that natural selection is random too. Forgetting the definition of that 'selection' word. Joe again, a little further down
Peter, Natural selection is just one way mutations accumulate. And when I say “accumulations of random muations” that includes ALL of the ways they do so. Again, what is wrong with you? Muations are said to be random in that they are not planned and have no purpose in mind and don’t even care if they kill their host. They just happen- and yes sometimes there are some things that make sure they happen (mutagens).
Here, JoeG says 'mutations accumulate by natural selection', then says that 'accumulations of random mutations' include ALL the ways (including natural selection). So logically we have A = B and B = C, therefore A=C JoeG, you are right, you may never have actually said the phrase "evolution is totally random". However, what you do actually say, is the same thing. More JoeG
Selection is just a result- it is differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. There isn’t anything non-random about it as whatever works good enough will do.
Again, I'm not sure of Joe's skill with the English Language, but that there is saying that everything is random in selection. Since Joe says mutations are random and selection is random, then the entirety of evolution, according to Joe, is random. (quotemine worthy, right there) Again, Joe might not have claimed evolution was random, but that's what he keeps saying. He never claimed that ID is anti-evolution, but the statements of the leaders of ID show that ID is anti-evolution. Archeology and forensics also know who the 'designer' is, what he/she/it is capable of and the methods by which the design is accomplished. You don't know any of that for ID... still. Yes, we do, because we can see the changes in the genome and how they affect the organism. I'm sure, this post will upset you. I'd like to note here that there is nothing in this post that is offensive, except for direct quotes from JoeG to me. If you find that offensive, then you might want to think about who is supporting ID on this site. I think I'm done here. But thanks for letting me kill a few hours. I may be back when I'm bored.OgreMk5_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST}

Chas,
And yet, for 99%+ of the people who study biology, evolution is the cornerstone of biology.
I disagree. If biologists can write entire research papers with "evolution" in the title and only add the idea of evolution as an afterthought to the actual content then apparently it is a "narrative gloss," not a foundation. And I've seen it myself more times than I can count. As self-contradictory as this sounds, it doesn't appear that evolution is even the cornerstone of evolution, let alone the rest of biology.
Their determination can’t be simple frustration at obtuseness, can it? It must be ulterior.
Didn't I plainly state that I didn't think this to be the case? You say you're not appealing to authority, but you are. So many people can't be wrong, because that would mean they're either evil, morons, or both. I don't think they're either. If authority can't be wrong then why is appeal to authority a logical fallacy?
Yet design can only explain X or Y in principle, and not in fact.
That's true. I've said so myself numerous times, but I like your wording better.
Your decision that the avian lung is unevolvable has no bearing on whether it was in fact evolved or designed.
Of course not. Reality is what it is, not what we decide. Your decision that it is evolvable likewise has no bearing. Neither does a consensus.
I think you would get a debate from any member of the scientific community if you waded in and tried to tell them that the standards of their field are so much hogwash, and here’s a much better idea we just cooked up at home.
There are a few things to untangle here. This is where it gets shadier and the line between people trying to convince themselves and issuing propaganda blurs. The premise that most everything in biology results from iterations of variation and selection is not a relevant "standard" in most biology. How could this be more evident when evolutionary biologists write papers about evolution without incorporating it into their explanations? If you can explain evolution itself without the mechanics of evolution, how does it follow that 99% of biology depends upon them? Biology is mostly full of credible science, and evolution seeks to borrow that credibility. If you've ever watched Seinfeld, it's like the guy who silently appears next to Elaine at work and shares the credit for everything she does. A 'better idea' or any other idea has nothing to do with it. That's yet another fallacy. If this idea is so bad, what's the better one? No explanation at all is better than a bad one. Sometimes the bad one keeps people from looking for a better one.ScottAndrews2_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

But I’m seeing a remarkably poor track record for what is supposed to be the cornerstone of biology. If there’s any conspiracy at all it could only be to avoid putting their best foot forward.
Well, I'm not trying to push any 'consensus omnium' argument in support of evolution. And yet, for 99%+ of the people who study biology, evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Perhaps biology attracts the gullible. I know that seems to be what the 'hard science' critics seem to think, with their 10-minute contemplation of the subject. The time taken to master the subject may not seem relevant to you, but the egregious errors of fundamental biology I see again and again from critics, yourself included, can be hair-tearing. And it matters. Trying to explain speciation to someone who is convinced that they are compartmentalised in time as well as at a particular moment ... Yeesh. They have to be, they must be, it's gotta be true, and anyone who is trying to persuade me otherwise must be trying to deceive me for nefarious purposes. Their determination can't be simple frustration at obtuseness, can it? It must be ulterior. Your standards relate to demonstrations of the role of selection in actual history. Not whether it can explain X or Y in principle, but whether it does explain X or Y in fact. If it doesn't, then all those evolutionary principles, worked out and examined in minute detail, are worthless, and it must be design. Yet design can only explain X or Y in principle, and not in fact. Your decision that the avian lung is unevolvable has no bearing on whether it was in fact evolved or designed.
I understand that a few people determined to win a debate are not representative of the entire scientific community.
I think you're wrong on that. I think you would get a debate from any member of the scientific community if you waded in and tried to tell them that the standards of their field are so much hogwash, and here's a much better idea we just cooked up at home.Chas D_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST}

Those who remain determined not to notice the fundamental difference between self-ordering and self-organisation do so willfully.
Well, if you think it's important, do try to explain the difference.
There is no operational definition of “naturally emergining control” because there is no such thing in reality since control in reality is an artefact.
Well, give me an operational definition of "emerging control, semantics or formalism" then.
Empirical observations suggest that nature is inert to utility, as has been noted many times
Please explain what "nature is inert to utility" means. Also perhaps link to some empirical observations of this.
The burden of proof lies on “naturalists” to show control can emerge gradually without intelligence. The burden of proof is on “naturalists” to show how physical reality alone can show intent to change utility.
In that case, provide your operational definition of "control". Also explain what you mean by "intent to change utility". Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST}

Chas, It's not even a question of motives. Like I said, no one gets a toaster or a trip to Mexico for convincing me. And I can't lump everyone together. What I observe looks more like people trying to convince themselves. What am I to understand when one person after another posts links to one research paper after another, apparently not realizing that it doesn't even claim to support what they say it does? It's not even a problem with the research. But they cite it as evidence for this and that, and those things aren't even addressed in the papers. Someone posted a paper in defense of variation and selection. In one paragraph, no quote-mining, the author explicitly stated that his results challenged the fundamental premise that natural selection selects variations that confer benefit. I find the behavior baffling. Why are people so desperate to prove themselves right that they will embarrass themselves by posting what they apparently haven't even read? It seems to confirm the notion that people simply believe that the evidence exists because there are lots of research papers and don't critically analyze it. I understand that a few people determined to win a debate are not representative of the entire scientific community. I'm not really interested in how long a degree takes. Much of what is called "evolution" is really just biology and genetics. Again, look at the papers with "evolution" in the title that are actually about biology, taxonomy, genetics, regulation, and so on. It reminds me of workplace programs with fancy names like Six Sigma. People attend trainings, achieve levels with names like "black belt," and then go forth applying new terminology to the common sense business of looking for inefficiencies and fixing them. Anyone could say the same thing, but people listen to a Six Sigma Black Belt. I am not making this up. That's what I see. It's just an opinion. Some people love anything with the word "evolution" in it. It makes the research more significant. It makes the flowers smell better and keeps the cereal crunchy. Nonetheless, I don't dismiss anything because of who says it. But I'm seeing a remarkably poor track record for what is supposed to be the cornerstone of biology. If there's any conspiracy at all it could only be to avoid putting their best foot forward.ScottAndrews2_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PST}

Dr Liddle, I would not like to delve into time wasting arguments. I totally argee with UB on this issue. And BTW, I find "The first gene" very educating. All those things you are asking about are defined there. I am happy with those definitions. Those who remain determined not to notice the fundamental difference between self-ordering and self-organisation do so willfully. There is no operational definition of "naturally emergining control" because there is no such thing in reality since control in reality is an artefact. As soon as we talk about control, utility considerations come up. Empirical observations suggest that nature is inert to utility, as has been noted many times. You are welcome to refute it by showing at least one phenomenon where it does not hold. The burden of proof lies on "naturalists" to show control can emerge gradually without intelligence. The burden of proof is on "naturalists" to show how physical reality alone can show intent to change utility.Eugene S_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

Not only have I been shown nothing, but now I’ve observed a determination to make me see what isn’t there.
As one of those who you may accuse of such sales-tactics, I must make some small protest here. I'm not quite sure how I could convince you of my bona fides, however. Once you start to suspect the motives of the 'salesman', all further offerings are viewed with elevated suspicion. It couldn't possibly be that the proponent has a perspective with merit, and that merit is what drives their argument. It does not do what you want it to do; the only conclusion: flimflam. A first-year biology class sits and listens to the prof's explanations. They are keen to learn - they have exams to pass. So they make the effort to understand. It doesn't always come easy - despite its inherent simplicity, evolutionary theory takes 3-4 years to get a degree-level understanding, same as any other discipline. If they stay in science, they have careers to pursue, but you don't get very far by sticking to ideology. Unless, that is, one subscribes to the notion that darwinism is an atheistic conspiracy. But that simply does not fly (just what a conspirator would say). Science is so intimately interlinked, it would be impossible to sustain a wrong theory while allowing all the 'good stuff' through - scientific results interact in often surprising ways. But someone who just folds his arms and says "Show me", then harrumphs as a series of quite involved concepts are paraded before him ... understanding something takes effort on the part of the recipient, as well as the dispenser of the information. You are quite right, we cannot provide the historical selective advantage of even one fixed gene, let alone a whole series of them leading to complexity. The reason for that is embedded in neo-darwinian theory itself - as soon as a gene is fixed, the rivals against which its selective advantage would be displayed are eliminated. Gone. Dead. But, you have decided that, due to the enthusiasm with which darwinists pursue their argument, it looks like ideology. It appears to you that its adherents have nothing but blind faith to go on. They take the trouble to try and explain the thinking behind their position, and it simply is not good enough for you. Which is fair enough. But impugning their motives is something else again.Chas D_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PST}

Well, we will hit the same problem as I did with Upright BiPed unless you can give me an operational definition of: "emerging control, semantics or formalism in nature unaided by intelligent agency" But please note, I am NOT claiming that "semantics" can emerge without intelligent agency. I think that would be an oxymoron. But that's where I got bogged down with UBP. So I think we will have to abandon that line of discussion.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PST}

Dr Liddle, Give us at least one demonstrable example of emerging control, semantics or formalism in nature unaided by intelligent agency APART from life which is the focus of the argument. As far as I can tell watching your dialog with UprightBiped, you have failed to do so, so far. However, I can comfort you by saying it is not only you who could not do it. Nobody can, even world class scientists like Prigogine, Eigen or Kauffman. Crystallisation of life on the edge of chaos is a myth and it takes an incredible amount of faith to remain materialist at the face of reality.Eugene S_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PST}

Strange you would say that as your position doesn't have anything that is persuasive. If it did I would still be an evolutionist...Joe_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PST}

Truisms can remind us of the obvious. Sometimes worth doing. And although I haven't read the book you mention, I have read quite a number of Abel's paper, and find them singularly unpersuasive. Can you summarise the case he makes that you find persuasive?Elizabeth Liddle_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PST}

To Ogre/ Kevin- The claim of Intelligent Design is to determine agency involvement from nature, operating freely. Nature, operating freely cannot construct a termite mound- it takes the agency of termites to do so. Nature, operating freely cannot produce a string of 1s and 0s. It takes an agency to do that. So your test displays agency involvement for BOTH strings of 1s and 0s. But it is strange taht you didn't realize that your "test" and your "conclusion" trash forensic science and archaeology. It's as if you are in your own little anti-ID world with all your anti-ID strawmen.Joe_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PST}

Dr Liddle, Unfortunately, truisms don't take one very far. I can refer you to D. Abel "The first gene". It is a very good read.Eugene S_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PST}

Ogre the strawman humper:
The point is (as we all saw) was that ID principles cannot be used to determine if a sequence of anything is random or designed.
As I told you your challenge doesn't have anything to do with ID as ID does not make the claim you state.
That sequence is either designed (by me) or a random data set generated by atmospheric white noise at random.org.
Which uses a MAN-MADE random noise generator.
People like JoeG claim that evolution is random.
No I do not. You are very mistaken.
ID claims to be able to determine design.
As do many other venues, including archaeology and forensic science.
Therefore my test is directly relevant to the claims of ID proponents. no it isn't for the reasons provided- the reasons you keep ignoring as if your ignorance means something. A I told you CONTEXT is everything and we do not see a string of 1s and 0s in the atmosphere. You are a moron, plain and simple. And very dishonset too.
Either their claim is wrong or ID is totally useless (or, most likely, both).
By that "logic" archaeology, forensic science, insurance fraud, forgery, et al. are all wrong and useless as they would also fail Kevin's "test". It would also mean the theory of evolution is nonsense because evis claim to be able to tell the difference between design and random also.
Joe_{January 19, 2012
January
01
Jan
19
19
2012
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PST}

The point is (as we all saw) was that ID principles cannot be used to determine if a sequence of anything is random or designed. That sequence is either designed (by me) or a random data set generated by atmospheric white noise at random.org. If ID proponents can’t determine which it is, then how can they expect to tell a thing that is purposefully designed from one that is designed by environmental pressure and random mutation of the genome? People like JoeG claim that evolution is random. ID claims to be able to determine design. Therefore my test is directly relevant to the claims of ID proponents. Either their claim is wrong or ID is totally useless (or, most likely, both).OgreMk5_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PST}

I like science. However your position has nothing to do with science.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PST}

Peter:
I’m surprised it took you that long to pull that quote out. You must be feeling very pleased with yourself!
I have been using that for a long time Peter. Again your ignorance is amusing.
So, Joe, if “natural selection” can be removed from the equation with no effect then what is left?
That would be your problem, not mine, duh. Peter:
You’ve already said that mutations are not random.
Liar.
Everything must be preordained in that case. Your designer must be very busy, going around the Galápagos Islands. Trapping finches, making their beaks big when required to crack nuts and then shrinking them down again. You’d think such an entity would have better things to do. Or that it could design a system to do it for it. But no. Joe says evolution don’t do squat, so down in the woods it is.
You are truly demented and a liar to boot. No intervening required, duh. ID accepts mutations happen. You are one dense dude. And Peter, you couldn't lead anyone anywhere. You are nothing but a strawman creating liar. Go pound sand- if you ever come up with a testable hypothesis for anything your position claims I would be interested in that.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PST}

A change in allele frequency- ie evolution- can occur in one generation. A change from prokaryote to eukaryote- no one knows how long it would take and no one knows if such a thing could occur- no way to test it. A change from fish to amphibian- again no one knows if such a transformation is possible- no way to test it. What can it do? Apparently not too much, that is if we go by experiments and observations.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST}

Defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans. Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

What do YOU have Peter? Anything at all?Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PST}

Peter, All you have done, if anything, is show that some mutations are random- and that is because the researchers refuse to accept that organisms are designed. Ya see peter, the only way to say that all mutations are random in any sense of the word is to demonstrate stochastic processes can produce living organisms- IOW just as I have been telling you the origins is essential to understanding any subsequent evolution.Joe_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PST}

The papers actually point to the mechanisms of change, in the effects of hypoxia on genes, for example. Ultimately, it looks like you do want a blue-ray dvd of the evolutionary change happening before your very eyes.Starbuck_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PST}

I read through them, even some of the papers they referenced. It's common for papers to analyze differences between signaling or regulation in related species, and, having quantified them, assert that the difference constitute a potential evolutionary pathway. What's missing? Again, the actual evolution. The differences are observed and the bridges between them is assumed. In each case they point to the possibility of common descent, not to the mechanisms of change. If birds descended from dinosaurs it would still require explanation, and darwinism has not provided it.ScottAndrews2_{January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PST}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply