Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ruse versus Nelson: What Would Make Us Change Our Minds? An Unconventional Debate, October 4

Paul Nelson
September 12, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

M Ruse P Nelson

An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”

— Paul Valery, Analects

Next month, on Thursday, October 4, Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate. Each of us will be asked to spell out what would change our minds about the other’s position. More to the point, what would persuade us to adopt the opposing stance on evolution or ID?

What evidence, what arguments, what whatever, would change Michael Ruse’s view of intelligent design? Conversely, what would turn me into a card-carrying Darwinian?

Go here for information about the debate location and time. See you there.

Comments
[...] are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson's announcement where he said "Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of [...]A Voice from the Middle Ground - Telic Thoughts
October 3, 2007
October
10
Oct
3
03
2007
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PST
[...] and Ruse will debate the issue of Intelligent Design. Well, kind of. Here is Nelson’s description of the upcoming event: Next month, on Thursday, October 4, Michael Ruse and I are going to have a [...]Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse “Undebate” Intelligent Design « Rational Perspectives
September 21, 2007
September
09
Sep
21
21
2007
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PST
Patrick When backed into a corner Gareth got stupid and belligerent. In answering the question of p.falciparum he must have been channelling Lamarck - according to Gareth p.faciparum didn't evolve any complexity because it didn't need any. I guess if p.falciparum had to stretch its neck to reach the higher leaves its progeny would have longer and longer necks as Larmarck believed happened with the giraffe. Must be p.falciparum has no need to survive in temperate climates or use any transmission vector other than mosquitos so that's why it doesn't bother evolving. :lol: After getting stupid Gareth then got belligerent and demanded to know where random mutation stops and ID starts and if I didn't answer it I was admitting defeat. Basically the asshat was asking where is the edge of evolution. I sincerely doubted he would bother reading Behe's book entitled (duh) "The Edge of Evolution" for the answer so I just axed him instead. Does the moderation policy explicitely state that belligerent stupidity is cause for termination?DaveScot
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PST
Gareth, I must thank you for compelling me to update the Put a Sock In It article. To other mods: how about chipping in and covering more of the common irritating arguments?Patrick
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST
Gareth is no longer with us.DaveScot
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST
I'll let Dave deal with the p.falciparum subject but the mere fact that'd you say this:
please explain where common descent ceases to occur and design takes over and (2) is all life irreducibly complex, and if not explain which life is not irreducibly complex.
...indicates that you don't comprehend the subject matter. For 1. design IS the cause of common descent, which is not really a process, rather it's a pattern imputed to the observations of nature made by observers from the outside. Common descent has functioned more as an abstract heuristic akin to the practice of making sense of groups (who's in, who's out) and of then relating those groups by a process of elimination. Although it should be noted that ID is compatible with Universal Common Descent, Common Descent through multiple LUCAs, and other scenarios. For 2. components of all life are irreducibly complex. Not all components are IC nor are they CSI. The question is whether unguided Darwinian processes (RM+NT, lateral gene transfer, symbiogenesis, reliance on hox genes, whatever) can produce IC and/or CSI components via Indirect Pathways. Unguided Darwinian processes "probably" (as in, my opinion) ARE capable of producing components that are composed of 3-6 parts (for comparison the flagellum is 41 and the most observed I've ever heard of is 2 or 3). Again, part of ID research is determining the limits of unguided Darwinian processes. Agreeing that there are beneficial mutations and limited instances of small changes is in no way a threat to ID or an admission of some sort...we've been saying this for years to deaf ears. You apparently missed this comment I made above: "A series of small changes have to come about independently, each having positive selective pressure, and then indirectly come together to form a new whole." This is called an Indirect Darwinian pathway. The reason a Direct Darwinian pathway isn't an option is due to Irreducible Complexity. Darwinists do not like to tacitly admit that IC is a factor but that's why all current research is now directed upon Indirect Darwinian pathways. Your understanding of the subject matter is in error. The simplistic view of Darwinism of the past that you apparently adhere to is wrong.Patrick
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST
Gareth
For your information, the differences are accounted for by random mutation and natural selection.
That's speculative. Unfortunately for the chance theory nothing but simple changes have been observed to result from random mutation. In the past one could claim that if enough generations could be observed we'd see the simple mutations piling up to become complex new structures. However, now that we've observed the changes occuring at the nucleotide level in p.falciparum (see Behe's "Edge of Evolution") over billions of trillions of generations and found no novel complex structures emerging in all that mutational opportunity, it seems on the face of it to have verified the predictions of ID that RM+NS is effectively incapable of accounting for the extant complexity we see in living things. I've yet to see an explanation from anyone about why p.falciparum failed to generate any novel complexity greater than two or three interdependent point mutations when given vastly more opportunity (generations) than all the mammals that ever lived. The ID prediction was verified in real life while the random mutation prediction was falsified. Please address this enigmatic problem for the chance theory. Continued silence on it will be taken as an admission of defeat.DaveScot
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST
bonagain77, you wrote: "Patrick nailed it down as for your frame of mind. You are making claims which we disagree with, and we show hard empirical evidence of why your claims will not work." Sorry, I missed the evidence - I got a few bits and pieces about things being broken, but no real evidence. If you want to provide some then do so. "But you, instead of providing hard empirical evidence to back up your claims, restate your beliefs as if this is a valid refutation with empirical evidence. Maybe in your mind you refuted us." I wasn't trying to refute anything. Our discussion centred on whether evolution had been falsified, based on your claim that there were no beneficial mutations, which I think we both concluded was not the case - there are beneficial mutations. So that attempt to falsify evolution foundered. I you want to try again with a different line, I'm happy to listen. "You state the fossil record is proof! We disagree! Thus you must prove that the jumps seen in the fossil record are possible on the molecular level. In other words, Show us a beneficial mutation on the molecular that does not in reality break something, or modify a preexisting function, and show how it improves the organism above the level of the genetic entropy of the parent species, if you want to be taken seriously on this site!" Er, our discussion was based on your (incorrect) claim that there are no beneficial mutations. Now, if you are saying that we are finished with that, and that there is some other thing that falsifies evolution then go ahead and recast your point in a more coherent form.Gareth
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PST
Joseph, in reply to your message: "[Me]I think there are many ID proponents that don’t accept common descent as well. [You] True, we aren’t that gullible. We, those who do not accept UCD, understand that in order for the concept to be scientific it must account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. And that is because the similarities can be accounted for via convergence and common design. Therefore if UCD is scientific then so are convergence and common design." Well, it was DaveScot who said that many ID proponents don't dispute common descent, so take it up with him. For your information, the differences are accounted for by random mutation and natural selection. And the logic in your last sentence is flawed - it's the evidence that counts, not the validity of another theory.Gareth
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST
"Searching for a pre-cambrian rabbit is not a valdi research program. And in order to falsify a scientific theory one must do so via a valid research program." Utterly wrong. You don't need a "valid research programme" at all. All you need is evidence. It doesn't matter if that comes from a research program, or if an amateur fossil hunter strolled by a cliff on a beach or in a quarry and accidentally found the fossil in the strata. It's the evidence that counts, not whether there was a formal research program that provided it. "LoL! You are confusing the alleged history of life with the theory of evolution. That you don’t understand the difference is very telling." Well, the history of life is important, but so are the anatomical similarities - the vertebrae, the lungs, the limbs etc.. Together they provide firm backing for evolution. "The fossil record is no friend of the theory of evolution. The vast majority of fossils are of marine inverts. And guess what? We do not see any major changes in that vast majority." First sentence - wrong, it does, and anyone with who's bothered to give more than a cursory glance at the fossil record can see it. Try it sometime. Second sentence - yes there are a lot of marine invertebrates but so what? There ARE plenty of invertebrates too. Presumably you've heard of plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs to name but two. Third sentence - wrong. We see plenty of changes in marine invertebrates. There are species that are very similar today to their fossil ancestors but so what? They have been successful species - scallops and mussels included - and thrive in todays environments as much as they did in prehistoric ones. "There isn’t any biological or genetic data which even demonstrates that the changes required are even possible." Whereas there is data that they've been intelligently designed? "To say nothing of the four mammalian limbs, also inherited from fish ancestry. Umm only if the same genes control both fish limbs and mammalian limbs- but they do not." Not necessarily tru. The mammalian ones could well be different but evolved from earlier fish species. "You’re the disappointment Gareth. You are also very gullible." My disappointnment was at your tone, rather than your position. On gullibility - well, I think someone who thinks there are 25 million year old artefacts shouldn't cast stones there... "The true origins article is full of scientific facts. The theory of evolution is full of wishful thinking." True Origins considers the age of the Earth to be around 6000 years. And you think its scientifically reliable? "BTW with sickle-cell anemia, if they didn’t have anyone to take care of them, they would die. IOW they may not get malaria but they would die very young anyway." Possibly, but thepoint is they live longer on average than people with malaria, and hence have more prospects for reproduction and hence passing on the trait. "It isn’t an advantage unless you have someone healthy to take care of you." But it IS an advantage over those who catch malaria and dies. That's the point. "BTW those 25 million year old artifacts were genuine." Evidence, please. "Also there isn’t anything in the theory of evolution which states that mammals had to evolve from amphibians which had to evolve from fish." Yes there is. Where did mammals get their vertebrae, lungs, limbs etc from then?Gareth
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PST
bornagain77, you wrote: "If your car alarm broke on your car is that proof your car is evolving into something better? If your carburetor could not take in as much air due to being partially crushed is that proof your car is evolving? If your taillight broke are you getting closer to a better machine? Certainly not! Then why do you insist that that the same type of actions over a long period time on the molecular level of biology are going to result in positive evolution instead of devolution?" Because living entities aren't cars. I see no difference between "positive evolution" and "devolution" - it's not a matter of quality, all evolution is concerned with is what it takes for an organism to survive. That's what sickle cell anaemia does - increase the probability of an organism surviving in a malarial environment. The organism isn't "broken" at all - it still survives and indeed, is more likely to survive in a malarial environment than what you would consider an "unbroken" organism. Let me put it another way - your (and my) eyesight is about 2% as good as that of a bird of prey. Does that mean our eyes are "broken"? Could you also please tell me what kind of Intelligent Designer would create malaria in the first place?Gareth
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PST
Gareth, Patrick nailed it down as for your frame of mind. You are making claims which we disagree with, and we show hard empirical evidence of why your claims will not work. But you, instead of providing hard empirical evidence to back up your claims, restate your beliefs as if this is a valid refutation with empirical evidence. Maybe in your mind you refuted us. You state the fossil record is proof! We disagree! Thus you must prove that the jumps seen in the fossil record are possible on the molecular level. In other words, Show us a beneficial mutation on the molecular that does not in reality break something, or modify a preexisting function, and show how it improves the organism above the level of the genetic entropy of the parent species, if you want to be taken seriously on this site!bornagain77
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PST
Guys...don't know why you're bothering any more. He's not backing up his statements of faith, just repeating them...and mangling other common arguments in the process.Patrick
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST
I think there are many ID proponents that don’t accept common descent as well. True, we aren't that gullible. We, those who do not accept UCD, understand that in order for the concept to be scientific it must account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. And that is because the similarities can be accounted for via convergence and common design. Therefore if UCD is scientific then so are convergence and common design.Joseph
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PST
“The pre-cambrian rabbit is not a valid falsification- for the reason provided.” You didn’t really provide one. Searching for a pre-cambrian rabbit is not a valdi research program. And in order to falsify a scientific theory one must do so via a valid research program. Go and have a look at the relevance of irreducible complexity to the design argument, then come back when you’ve learned more.Umm the theory of evolution does not say that mammals had to revolve from amphibians who evolved from fish.” Yes it does. LoL! You are confusing the alleged history of life with the theory of evolution. That you don't understand the difference is very telling. The fossil record is no friend of the theory of evolution. The vast majority of fossils are of marine inverts. And guess what? We do not see any major changes in that vast majority. There isn't any biological or genetic data which even demonstrates that the changes required are even possible. To say nothing of the four mammalian limbs, also inherited from fish ancestry. Umm only if the same genes control both fish limbs and mammalian limbs- but they do not. You're the disappointment Gareth. You are also very gullible. The true origins article is full of scientific facts. The theory of evolution is full of wishful thinking. BTW with sickle-cell anemia, if they didn't have anyone to take care of them, they would die. IOW they may not get malaria but they would die very young anyway. It isn't an advantage unless you have someone healthy to take care of you. BTW those 25 million year old artifacts were genuine. Also there isn't anything in the theory of evolution which states that mammals had to evolve from amphibians which had to evolve from fish. Obviously you do not understand the theory. What part about that don't you understand?Joseph
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PST
Gareth, If your car alarm broke on your car is that proof your car is evolving into something better? If your carburetor could not take in as much air due to being partially crushed is that proof your car is evolving? If your taillight broke are you getting closer to a better machine? Certainly not! Then why do you insist that that the same type of actions over a long period time on the molecular level of biology are going to result in positive evolution instead of devolution?bornagain77
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST
DaveScot, Thanks for the reply. From your post: "[Me] The onus is on ID proponents to explain why they think that only minor changes are possible. [You] Agreed. But this has been done many times by many authors. It’s not a matter of what is possible but rather a matter of what is statistically likely. The most understandable example of this is that it’s possible for a person to flip a fair coin a million times and have every single flip come up heads. It’s possible but so statistically improbable that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible." I would certainly agree about the extreme improbability of tossing a million heads in a row. But I suspect that evolution isn't really a million heads in a row. Once you have the coin, and begin tossing and keep on tossing a million times, you are going to have a sequence of a million tosses (a mixture of heads and tails) which is in itself unique. Now, if you were to specify that particular sequence of a million tosses AT THE OUTSET (i.e. before you began tossing) then that sequence would be just as likely (or unlikely) to happen as if you specified a million tosses of heads only. The point is: once you begin tossing, and toss a million times, you are bound to have some sort of sequence of a million tosses. Evolution is the same. If at the origin of life you specified what life would be like after a couple of billion years of evolution, and got it right, the cahnces of accurately predicting the evolution of mammals would be just as unlikely as accurately predicting a sequence of a million coin tosses. But once life starts and continues evolving then, after a few billion years you will have some sort of life. But at the origin of life it would have been impossible to predict the rise of mammals - evolution could have taken any one of countless turns. So, instead of mammals, we may have had some sort of life with a dozen legs and fourteen eyes that reproduced by throwing spors in the air. Just one of countless possibilities, just as a million toin cosses produces countless possible sequences of heads and tails. The "million heads in a row" is only relevant if you consider that mammals are something special over the dozen legs/fourteen eyes configuration. "[Me] It is certainly true that evolution predicts only minor changes from generation to generation - but when you look at the cumulative effect of hundreds of millions or billions of generations then those many, many changes can lead to large changes. But if ID proponents think there is some sort of barrier to this then its up to them to say what they think it is and provide evidence. [You] Behe provides exactly that evidence in “The Edge of Evolution”. Billions of trillions of generations of p.falciparum failed to produce any novel complexity beyond what can be accomplished via two or three interdependent individual nucleotide changes. It’s up to chance proponents to explain why p.falciparum, randomly evolving in time as we watched it, performed exactly as ID predicted. In far fewer generations reptiles evolved into mammals via a large number of extremely complex novel structures. If p.falciparum didn’t come up with ANY complex structures via random mutation how on earth did mammals acquire all that complexity in far fewer generations? If reptiles were flipping coins they were more likely to flip a million heads in a row than they were of evolving into mammals. The “barrier” is statistical probability. Dembski has a PhD in statistics but I don’t think it takes a PhD in statistics to understand the barrier. It takes a Darwinian brainwashing to ignore it." I think the point here is that p.falciparum is doing very nicely for itself, so there may not have been any evolutionary benefit in producing more complex structures. Similarly, mammals evolved from reptiles because there was some evolutionary benefit in certain niches - but we still have reptiles because they still do quite nicely in the environments they inhabit (recent human activities excepted). "[Me] Try a mass of evidence from the fossil record. Or go to a good Natural Histroy Museum. [You] This is evidence of common descent. Many ID proponents do not dispute common descent. We dispute the notion that random mutation is the source of most of the variation we see in the lines of descent." I agree with your first sentence. On the second sentence, I think there are many ID proponents that don't accept common descent as well. I am unclear where the "ID Movement" as a whole is on this - the broad tent won't really be sustainable in the long term because, sooner or later, ID will have to say where it stands on common descent. On the third sentence - I would agree that random mutation on its own would not be enough because the selection (which is non-random) is a critical part of the saga. Thanks for the reply.Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST
It is certainly true that evolution predicts only minor changes from generation to generation - but when you look at the cumulative effect of hundreds of millions or billions of generations then those many, many changes can lead to large changes.
You can't simply stack small changes and--boom--you got something complex. That's not how it works. A series of small changes have to come about independently, each having positive selective pressure, and then indirectly come together to form a new whole. That type of scenario is essentially relying on serendipity. One of your fellow Darwinists was nice enough to admit this wasn't the case here on UD:
One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case. -MacNeill
But to avoid quote-mining, he did believe that other mechanisms (acquisition and fusion of genomes, etc) might be capable of producing macroevolution but at this time he doesn't have direct evidence to support this view.
An if you DO manage to find something that falsifies evolution then let me know….
How are you defining "evolution": blind watchmaker hypothesis? In that case there isn't any positive evidence based upon actual observation. What failed prediction would you consider to be adequate for falsification?Patrick
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST
bornagain77, don't worry about it. This can indeed be touchy for some folks, but there's no point any of us chucking stones at each other. As for my blatant lack of knowledge - feel glad for me that I am on an exciting voyage of discovery, because there's so much more for me to investigate! An if you DO manage to find something that falsifies evolution then let me know....Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST
Gareth, I'm sorry that if me implying that you were on something was offensive. I know that is a touchy subject for many people who have been battered by substance abuse. Yet in hindsight it might have been advantageous to you if you were on something then at least you would have something to blame your apparent blatant lack of knowledge on.bornagain77
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PST
Gareth The onus is on ID proponents to explain why they think that only minor changes are possible. Agreed. But this has been done many times by many authors. It's not a matter of what is possible but rather a matter of what is statistically likely. The most understandable example of this is that it's possible for a person to flip a fair coin a million times and have every single flip come up heads. It's possible but so statistically improbable that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible. It is certainly true that evolution predicts only minor changes from generation to generation - but when you look at the cumulative effect of hundreds of millions or billions of generations then those many, many changes can lead to large changes. But if ID proponents think there is some sort of barrier to this then its up to them to say what they think it is and provide evidence. Behe provides exactly that evidence in "The Edge of Evolution". Billions of trillions of generations of p.falciparum failed to produce any novel complexity beyond what can be accomplished via two or three interdependent individual nucleotide changes. It's up to chance proponents to explain why p.falciparum, randomly evolving in time as we watched it, performed exactly as ID predicted. In far fewer generations reptiles evolved into mammals via a large number of extremely complex novel structures. If p.falciparum didn't come up with ANY complex structures via random mutation how on earth did mammals acquire all that complexity in far fewer generations? If reptiles were flipping coins they were more likely to flip a million heads in a row than they were of evolving into mammals. The "barrier" is statistical probability. Dembski has a PhD in statistics but I don't think it takes a PhD in statistics to understand the barrier. It takes a Darwinian brainwashing to ignore it. Try a mass of evidence from the fossil record. Or go to a good Natural Histroy Museum. This is evidence of common descent. Many ID proponents do not dispute common descent. We dispute the notion that random mutation is the source of most of the variation we see in the lines of descent. DaveScot
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST
bornagain77, you wrote: "Are we in the same reality? You seem to think breaking things on the molecular level so that a bacteria can no longer recognize an antibiotic is “conclusive” proof of novelty for evolution." No, I merely asked for your best shot at falsifying evolution. You picked mutations being harnful. I pointed out a handful are beneficial to the organism - such as bacterial antibiotic resistance - and that that is a driver for evolution. So far nothing you've responded with has altered that. "Are you smoking something?" You disappoint me. I expect that from Joseph but I thought you were better than that. "Dr. Behe clearly illustrates in EOE that the only “observed” protein binding site generated in humans by RM/NS is the sickle cell adaptation to malaria, and even this supposed novelty of protein binding comes at the terrible cost of a less efficient respiratory system for humans." Yes - but the pont is, in malarial envuironments it is beneficial. In a word - its more advantageous IN MALARIAL ENVIRONMENTS to live with a less efficient oxygen transport system and be free of malaria than to have a more efficient oxygen transport system but be dead because you caught malaria. "As Joseph stated, if you have to refer to diseases to provide “observed” proof for the novelty evolution you have already lost the battle. I for one am not impressed in the least with your “conclusive” observed proof of evolution!" Again you disappoint me. I'm doing win or lose - play that childish game with someone else. Nor am I trying to prove evolution - the onus on you was to falsify it. You have singularly failed to do so.Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST
Joseph wrote: "What’s beneficial to one generation isn’t necessarily beneficial to the next." True. On the other hand, it might be. If it is it might confer an evolutionary advantage. If not it won't. "Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease. That’s what I mean by “deficiency”. If you are going to rely on a disease to make your point then you have already lost." Grow up. This isn't win-lose. Yes, sickle cell anaemia is a disease - it is a DISADVANTAGE in areas where there is no malaria, but an ADVANTAGE in areas where malaria occurs. "As for anti-biotic resistance:" Come back when you have something better than a load of cobblers from a creationist website.Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PST
Joseph, You wrote: "The pre-cambrian rabbit is not a valid falsification- for the reason provided." You didn't really provide one. As for my reasons, see my reply to DaveScot's post. "Anyone who uses or spews such a scenario does not understand science- including Haldane." I think it's you who doesn't understand the implications. I don't think Haldane will be too bothered by your comment. "It is not a valid research program." It isn't a research program at all, nor intended to be. But should a fossil rabbit crop up in such strata then it would have the effect I mention. "This gets us back to the “what was designed” and “what has evolved” issue. I take it English is your second language." Your point? Or are you running out of valid arguments and having to resort to insult? "For my part, I think the definition of irreducible complexity that Behe uses probably means that absolutely everything was designed, or else the definition needs to be looked at again. For your part you don’t understand what is being debated." Go and have a look at the relevance of irreducible complexity to the design argument, then come back when you've learned more. "Their (or even its) presence would invalidate evolution. You simply couldn’t have a fossil of a creature that occurred in rock strata from millions of years before its ancestors (fish and amphibians) evolved. Umm the theory of evolution does not say that mammals had to revolve from amphibians who evolved from fish." Yes it does. The anatomy of mammals clearly shows their ancestry. Mammals derive their jaws from fish ancestry (which is where jaws first evolved), likewise lungs from lungfish and amphibian ancestry. To say nothing of the four mammalian limbs, also inherited from fish ancestry. "If a mammal was found in the pre-cambrian a) it would be explained away- just as 25 million year old human artifacts have been explained away- or b) some new mechanism would be proposed to account for it." If you mean by (a) the artefacts were found not to be genuine then you'd be right. Your (b) is completely wrong - because of the clear dependence of mammals on their ancestry from other classes, such as fish and amphibians, it could not be explained away. "The onus is on ID proponents to explain why they think that only minor changes are possible. The onus is on evolutionists to demonstrate that major changes are possible." Done. See the comments on the ancestry of mammals. "Let us know when they come up with some evidence we can get our teeth into. That is what the theory of evolution needs. So far it only has speculation based on an assumption." Try a mass of evidence from the fossil record. Or go to a good Natural Histroy Museum.Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PST
Gareth you stated; Given that beneficial mutations occur, and you have conceded as much, there is clearly raw material for selection part and evolution will occur. Therefore I do not see that this falsifies evolution - conversely, it bolsters it. Are we in the same reality? You seem to think breaking things on the molecular level so that a bacteria can no longer recognize an antibiotic is "conclusive" proof of novelty for evolution. Are you smoking something? How in the world does breaking a preexisting molecular function provide proof of the novelty that evolution is required to generate? Dr. Behe clearly illustrates in EOE that the only "observed" protein binding site generated in humans by RM/NS is the sickle cell adaptation to malaria, and even this supposed novelty of protein binding comes at the terrible cost of a less efficient respiratory system for humans. As Joseph stated, if you have to refer to diseases to provide "observed" proof for the novelty evolution you have already lost the battle. I for one am not impressed in the least with your "conclusive" observed proof of evolution!bornagain77
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PST
Fair enough - but in the context of whether it assists with survival and reproduction, the benfits become quite clear. Either it helps the individual survive or it doesn’t - or, it gives the individual a reproductive adavnatge, or it doesn’t. What's beneficial to one generation isn't necessarily beneficial to the next. I’m not sure what you mean by “genetic deficiency”, but anyway it isn’t relevant. The point is that it is beneficial in that it has a protective effect against malaria, hence it is advantageous for individuals that have it an a malarial environment. Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease. That's what I mean by "deficiency". If you are going to rely on a disease to make your point then you have already lost. As for anti-biotic resistance: Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? Abstract:
While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
Joseph
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PST
The pre-cambrian rabbit is not a valid falsification- for the reason provided. Anyone who uses or spews such a scenario does not understand science- including Haldane. It is not a valid research program. “Who opposes evolution? ID doesn’t. The debate is about the mechansism- culled genetic accidents vs. designed to evolve.” This gets us back to the “what was designed” and “what has evolved” issue. I take it English is your second language. "What has evolved" needs context- IOW what mechanism- culled genetic accidents vs, designed to evolve. For my part, I think the definition of irreducible complexity that Behe uses probably means that absolutely everything was designed, or else the definition needs to be looked at again. For your part you don't understand what is being debated. Also Dr Behe stated:
Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.
“The theory of evolution can never be falsified because it will always be claimed that time can overcome all obstacles.” For reasons explained in earlier posts, the fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian cannot be overcome. Again searching for a pre-cambrian rabbit is NOT a valid research program. Their (or even its) presence would invalidate evolution. You simply couldn’t have a fossil of a creature that occurred in rock strata from millions of years before its ancestors (fish and amphibians) evolved. Umm the theory of evolution does not say that mammals had to revolve from amphibians who evolved from fish. If a mammal was found in the pre-cambrian a) it would be explained away- just as 25 million year old human artifacts have been explained away- or b) some new mechanism would be proposed to account for it. The onus is on ID proponents to explain why they think that only minor changes are possible. The onus is on evolutionists to demonstrate that major changes are possible. Read the following: Do small changes plus time = large changes? Let us know when they come up with some evidence we can get our teeth into. That is what the theory of evolution needs. So far it only has speculation based on an assumption.Joseph
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST
Joseph, you wrote: "“Beneficial” is relative." Fair enough - but in the context of whether it assists with survival and reproduction, the benfits become quite clear. Either it helps the individual survive or it doesn't - or, it gives the individual a reproductive adavnatge, or it doesn't. "Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a single-nucleotide substitution- a point mutation. It is “beneficial” in that the recipient is shielded from malaria. However it is a genetic deficiency." I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic deficiency", but anyway it isn't relevant. The point is that it is beneficial in that it has a protective effect against malaria, hence it is advantageous for individuals that have it an a malarial environment. "Anti-biotic resistance is a similar scenario- the mutation allows the individuals to live but at an overall cost- ie it is genetically deficient as a result." No, that is wrong. There is NOT and overall cost - survival is a clear net benefit. There is no point in being "genetically sufficient" if you don't survive as a result (there is an "overall cost" to being "genetically sufficient", if you like). I don't think anyone in the medical world is jumping for joy about antibiotic resistant microbes being "genetically deficient".Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST
bornagain77, you wrote: "Should be corrected to read like this: You state that I must agree beneficial(information creating) mutations occur, This is a false presumption on your part." Actually, I said no such thing. I merely said you must agree that beneficial mutations occur. That is implicit from what you said earlier, and is actually EXPLICIT from your post where you wrote "I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation." I made absolutely no comment on whether it is "information creating" or not, and frankly I don't think it matters to the basic point: beneficial mutations occur. Given that beneficial mutations occur, and you have conceded as much, there is clearly raw material for selection part and evolution will occur. Therefore I do not see that this falsifies evolution - conversely, it bolsters it.Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST
Patrick, you wrote: "ID proponents have been saying for YEARS that Darwinian processes DO function BUT are only capable of making minor changes. You have provided nothing that says otherwise, only speculation" The onus is on ID proponents to explain why they think that only minor changes are possible. It is certainly true that evolution predicts only minor changes from generation to generation - but when you look at the cumulative effect of hundreds of millions or billions of generations then those many, many changes can lead to large changes. But if ID proponents think there is some sort of barrier to this then its up to them to say what they think it is and provide evidence. "The latest research by ID proponents is attempting to ascertain the exact limits of unguided Darwinian processes and convenient scenarios." Let us know when they come up with some evidence we can get our teeth into.Gareth
September 18, 2007
September
09
Sep
18
18
2007
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply